barf forth apocalyptica > roleplaying theory, hardcore

Saving throws as analogy for moves

(1/2) > >>

2097:
Has this observation already been done?

Another cross post from another forum but I thought it was interesting to hear you gearheads' take on it:

[In Apocalypse World and Dungeon World] every single action is like how saving throws work in D&D.
In D&D, you're talking along, describing what you're doing, how you're walking down the dungeon corridor etc, conversation style, everything's dandy... then whoops, you step in some sort of poison hole, there might be some trouble involved with that, make a saving throw and that'll tell us all the consequences.

In Dungeon World (and AW), every single thing is like this. You're talking describing how you're fighting the monster, chopping along, having fun fighting this horrible giant ogre but whoops, you put yourself in danger in the fight, make a "Hack&Slash" check to see whether you are hurt.

It's All Saving Throws, All The Time. My friend Trix described it as a "consequences system" rather than a "task resolution system" (and rather than a "conflict resolution system" that The Shadow of Yesterday uses), but I think of it as ASTATT.

It works because the action economy is built around it. Monsters deal damage when they deal damage. If you say "I go stand in front of the ogre and look at it intently in the eyes", well, you might get smashed straight up. Similar to how there is no saving throw in D&D if you just go jump off a cliff deliberately. But if you go "I go stand in front of the ogre and then I bring up my dagger and try to cut its fingers off before it can smash me [whoops, that got a little graphic, I apologize]", well, you've got to make a roll and the consequences of failing that roll might be that you get smashed because you weren't fast enough or good enough with the dagger.

2097:
Also, this is why the name "move" is a little strange; when I first heard of the moves my thought immediately went to moves in video games, things that you can trigger by pushing buttons in the interface; things that after a while become the interface.

But... in the ASTATT model, the moves are kinda the other way around. Your "interface" is what you are doing in the fiction, and the mechanics are engaged from that. Maybe I'm overstating it...?

Munin:
Kind of. The moves "trigger" by the fictional situation, not the other way around. You don't say, "Oh, I'm gonna roll+Hot to get him to do what I want." Instead, the MC looks at what you're trying to do narratively, and if that situation sounds like manipulation, he or she will say, "OK, cool, roll+Hot."

The important thing is that the moves are both descriptive (they tell us what has happened) and prescriptive (they tell us what's about to happen). The descriptive part is what you're talking about with your "saving throw" analogy, but the prescriptive part is (IMHO) more important. It's what keeps the moves snowballing, and describes how the fictional positions of the various participants change. The MC moves in particular tend to work this way.

Also, different moves have different structures. Do something under fire definitely has aspects of "save versus bad stuff happening to you," but seize by force assumes that bad stuff is already happening to you. As soon as the move is triggered, you know you're taking harm. The question then becomes one of "what are your priorities in this conflict" which has a very different feel mechanically than a "saving throw." Sure, one of your options is to reduce the damage you are taking in return, but depending on the situation, that option might not be important to you. Similarly, seduce or manipulate is all about "what is it going to cost me to get what I want?"

Fleuri:
I don't think it's completely analoguous. Stepping into a poison trap and then rolling to see if you get hurt does not happen in Apocalypse World as the moves correspond to real actions in game's fiction. What could happen though:

GM: "You see a narrow corridor in front of you, void of anything remarkable. It is jarringly different from the other corridors you've walked through before reaching this point. (Announce future badness)"
PC: "I have a bad feeling about this. I try to navigate the corridor very carefully and treading lightly.
GM: "Ok! That sounds like doing something under fire. Roll+cool"

Then results would be something like:
10+: Navigated without problems
7-9: Getting through with slight complication e.g. scraped by a dart trap or not getting hurt but triggering some sort of an alarm.
Miss: Getting hurt, getting stuck, getting separated from other PCs by falling through a trapdoor on the floor.

My two cents.

2097:

--- Quote from: Munin on June 08, 2016, 01:33:02 PM ---Kind of. The moves "trigger" by the fictional situation, not the other way around.
--- End quote ---

Right, I'm thinking "to do it, do it", and if the MC doesn't know what happens they'll ask you to make a roll.
Some things have a rule to always be "uncertain" in this way so that the MC just can't decide something.

For example, there is some sorta corridor with a red/white checkerboard floor where the red squares are made out of very thin glass with poison pools under them. The MC tells the player about how the floor looks but not what it's made of. What do you do?

And the player goes "I'm scared, I'm just gonna run through it as fast as I can" and the MC says "after a couple of steps you hit a red square hard and it shatters, and you smell poison. What do you do?" and the player goes "I try to pull my foot up from there before getting hurt" and the MC says "OK, roll act under fire" because she doesn't know how successful the foot-up-pulling is going to be.
7-9 get hurt by glass, 6- get poisoned
But if the player described themselves as like throwing in some hard rocks in the corridor, there would be another outcome and another move engaged, or maybe no move would need to be engaged.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page