Adopting Apocalypse World resolution for other games ?

silva · Post by **silva** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:44 pm

*ressurrecting*

So, anyone tried this ? Im about to begin an Eclipse Phase game and would like to test the “only Players roll” and “no-null results” resolution with it.

Stinktopus · Post by **Stinktopus** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:23 pm

silva wrote:*ressurrecting*

So, anyone tried this ? Im about to begin an Eclipse Phase game and would like to test the “only Players roll” and “no-null results” resolution with it.

You got a 9 on your resurrection roll. The thread is now an undead abomination. Also, bears...

Mord · Post by **Mord** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:40 pm

Resurrecting a year-old BearWorld thread? Oh, ok.

Mistborn · Post by **Mistborn** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:57 pm

Mord wrote:Resurrecting a year-old BearWorld thread? Oh, ok.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:11 pm

You have been waylaid by bear puns and must defend yourself.

Or not. Roll some dice first. No, the result doesn't matter, but the sound helps me make up my mind.

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:00 am

EP and RQ are both percentile roll-under. Just have bears attack when you roll over.

Dogbert · Post by **Dogbert** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:04 am

Using a conflict resolution mechanic that turns a game into an instant comedy of errors would certainly work in Toon, TFOS, or Ninja Burger.

I can't think of non-comedy games where I'd want to use it, however.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:14 am

Dogbert wrote:Using a conflict resolution mechanic that turns a game into an instant comedy of errors would certainly work in Toon, TFOS, or Ninja Burger.

I can't think of non-comedy games where I'd want to use it, however.

In my experience, anything that makes contact with players turns into an instant comedy of errors. PCs wear mouse ears and clown shoes, it's part of their special aura.

silva · Post by **silva** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:25 am

Ok, so forget the "add a complication" range. What about the GM never rolling dice ? How would such a concept fair in a pretty trad percentile game like EP ?

(and please, if you dont have anything useful to add to the discussion, resist the temptation to troll the thread just because it has "silva" and "apocalypse world" on it. Im really looking for useful advice here)

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:39 am

Most systems, especially rules light fiction-first systems, won't break if the GM doesn't roll dice. You might have to abstract combat into a couple of skill checks, but really, most GM die tables are equally as good as going "You encounter..." *pushes app on cell phone that makes dice rolling and page turning sounds behind the GM screen* "3 blonde prostitutes, 2 redheaded prostitutes, and a thick layer of gems concealing a pit of quicksand."

Emerald · Post by **Emerald** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:03 am

silva wrote:How would such a concept fair in a pretty trad percentile game like EP ?

D&D does it just fine.

silva · Post by **silva** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:46 am

Emerald, thats exactly what Im looking for. Thanks.

Know of any groups that have tried it ?

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:04 am

silva wrote:Emerald, thats exactly what Im looking for. Thanks.

Know of any groups that have tried it ?

It works fine, with the caveat that the GM should roll attacks for creatures with a crit range better than 20.

Dogbert · Post by **Dogbert** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:59 am

Numenera already does the "only players roll dice" thing. It's reasonably expedient.

MisterDee · Post by **MisterDee** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:40 am

Damn, I was hoping for another good, rousing discussion of spambot metalinguistics. Instead it's more Apocalypse World bullshit.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:49 am

rasmuswagner wrote:
silva wrote:Emerald, thats exactly what Im looking for. Thanks.

Know of any groups that have tried it ?
It works fine, with the caveat that the GM should roll attacks for creatures with a crit range better than 20.

Not necessarily; you can just increase the error range similarly, and treat it similarly to threat range for attacks. It's not simpler, but it does fill the requirement.

Krusk · Post by **Krusk** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:38 am

silva wrote:Emerald, thats exactly what Im looking for. Thanks.

Know of any groups that have tried it ?

We did it for half a session once, when a dm suggested it. It slowed the game down a ton and then we told him to stop it and roll his own dice.

Problems. The dm can roll a bunch of dice at the same time vs a bunch of players and do the math much faster on his own than if he has to involve the players. This is why most of the time an experienced dms turn takes way less time than most players. Even though he is controlling multiple monsters.

Benefit - the dm doesn't have to buy dice I guess?

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:20 am

Krusk, that is.. weird. The purpose of the concept is to make gameplay faster by cutting down on rolls.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:08 pm

silva wrote:The purpose of the concept is to make gameplay faster by cutting down on rolls.

The fact you're wrong shouldn't be weird. Reducing the number of rolls and having the players make all of the rolls are distinctly different concepts.

Cyberzombie · Post by **Cyberzombie** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:27 pm

virgil wrote:The fact you're wrong shouldn't be weird. Reducing the number of rolls and having the players make all of the rolls are distinctly different concepts.

Yeah, as far as I can tell, Apocalypse world doesn't run faster because the players roll all the dice, it runs faster because you don't get 1/attack per monster or 1/attack per monster limb like in D&D. Instead you just make players make "avoid damage" rolls or "combat" rolls, with monsters as the flavor text. The reason you save time there is because you've skipped the process of having an initiative list, the monsters attack/damage rolls and went right to just having the PC make a saving throw.

As Krusk says, the DM is very likely to be the fastest roller at the table and the game would be quicker if you put more rolls in his hands, not less. The main reason you put rolls in the PCs hands is not for speed, but to give the PCs more of an illusion that they're controlling their destiny. While it may seem trivial, being the one to actually throw the dice as opposed to seeing it thrown gives people a psychological sense that they're more in control.

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:26 pm

Cyberzombie wrote:The main reason you put rolls in the PCs hands is not for speed, but to give the PCs more of an illusion that they're controlling their destiny. While it may seem trivial, being the one to actually throw the dice as opposed to seeing it thrown gives people a psychological sense that they're more in control.

Yeah, this is extremely important to some people. I know a guy who goes ballistic if the idea of someone rolling for someone else comes up. One time, we were playing risk and the dice were out of my reach so I asked another player to roll for me. This made the guy I mentioned before start frothing at the mouth. He even said, "What's the point of even playing the game if you aren't going to roll your own dice?" as if the dice somehow depend on the thrower's skill or something (which would be your 'cheating without getting caught' skill if it actually did anything).

Incidentally, I think I remember some Hindu mythology that referred to dice skill, but I'm not sure.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:00 pm

Virgil wrote: Reducing the number of rolls and having the players make all of the rolls are distinctly different concepts.

They are the same thing in the AW iteration of the concept. Imagine a situation where 1 PC is fighting 4 NPCs. The number of rolls on each round in D&D would be 5, while in AW it would be only 1.

Got it ?

cyberzombie wrote:Yeah, as far as I can tell, Apocalypse world doesn't run faster because the players roll all the dice, it runs faster because you don't get 1/attack per monster or 1/attack per monster limb like in D&D

It run faster due to both your points: less rolls overall, and less mechanical granularity.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:36 pm

silva wrote:
Virgil wrote: Reducing the number of rolls and having the players make all of the rolls are distinctly different concepts.
They are the same thing in the AW iteration of the concept. Imagine a situation where 1 PC is fighting 4 NPCs. The number of rolls on each round in D&D would be 5, while in AW it would be only 1.

Bull. What's reducing the resolution is mechanically abstracting the 4 NPCs into a single entity and then further abstracting the combat round to a single roll to determine who won that exchange. Notice how none of that is dependent on or even influenced by who actually rolls?

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:51 pm

Ok Virgil, perhaps I overabstracted in my example. But consider the following:

3 PCs vs 3 NPCs.

In a trad game, the GM must do a series of rolls for each NPC, that may go from initiative rolls to attack rolls, defense rolls, damage rolls, etc. All this take time. On a AW-like "only players roll" concept, you dont do any of these rolls, because they are subsumed in the players rolls. So you cut time by half.

Got it now ?

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:00 pm

great googaly moogaly

Why is anyone still responding to silva?