Quote from: silva;601002Hmmm... dont think so. In the case of Apocalypse World, I think the hate is moved by envy, not ignorance.

The idea that Apocalypse World is a "story game" is so idiotic to anybody who's actually played it that it's clear whoever is responsible for the thread move has simply decided "Vincent Baker, Forge, toys, pram, thrown" in something like that order. I think envy plays a part, but it's mostly down to being blinkered, uneducated, moronic, and unthinking.

Quote from: Thalaba;600996What don't you like about it?

I am not a big fan of postapoclyptic games, and the way it was presented in AW didn't appeal. I also found the system a little too abstract, though very good.

Dungeon World and Monster of the Week are genres that I like more and they are a little less (though not much more) abstract.

Sky, how is that so ? How is DW less abstract than AW ? (not nitpicking or anything like that man, just curious really )

Quote

QuoteActually, this thread makes me read reviews about this game, and my loathing of the system grows the more i read about it. It is the contradiction of many things i like in RPGs. For example the "no given type can be in a group more than once".

It doesnt sound more absurd to me than D&D´s "mages cant wear armor" or "fire-and-forget" spells.

Just to correct myself here: I didnt intend to call those D&D features really absurd. They are like that because they serve a intended design, and they fit perfectly in it. But judged isolated they could sound as absurd as any other feature. Thats my point, ok ?

Quote from: silva;601045Sky, how is that so ? How is DW less abstract than AW ? (not nitpicking or anything like that man, just curious really )

Admittedly my experiences of Apocalypse World are limited and my main reason for not playing more is a lack of interest in the post-apocalyptic genre, but I found the attributes, moves and playbooks in AW to be less concrete than the DW equivalents. For example, I didn't like having a "Hot +1" attribute

Quote from: Internet Death;600975The Apocalypse World Engine gets a lot of love on other forums.  I like it myself, but it seems like nobody really digs the Apocalypse World setting.  Predictably enough, people tend to prefer the boring and safe Dungeon World variant.

I've never tried to "hack" anything with AW, I like the original setting just fine.  I am looking forward to tremulus though.

tremulus is very fun. Ran a one on one game for a buddy for Halloween and he wants to try it again, taking the initiative to start selling one of our other players on it.

I also dig what I've read of Dungeon World and Monster of the Week, but I have no interest in Apocalypse World.

Quote from: Skywalker;600991BTW you may have got more love for Apocalypse World had it been placed in the RPG forum and not other games (or did mods arbitrarily move this one :confused:).

I'm guessing they moved it. There was a troll on here a few months back who claimed it was an STG (it isn't) and the mods, who have no direct experience with the game, were convinced by his ramblings.

Based on the mini-campaign I played in awhile back, I'm a huge fan of Apocalypse World. My next major, dedicated campaign as a GM will likely be an Apocalypse World game.

What I was particularly struck by with the game is the explicit game structures it contains. In this it is very similar to the OD&D rulebooks, although the actual structures being defined by Baker are completely different from the dungeon-crawling and proto-hexcrawl structures that Arneson and Gygax were laying out.

Quote from: Phantom Black;600997Actually, this thread makes me read reviews about this game, and my loathing of the system grows the more i read about it. It is the contradiction of many things i like in RPGs. For example the "no given type can be in a group more than once". That's just contrived Forger bullshit.

AD&D 1e PHB, pg. 25: "No more than three rangers may ever operate together at any time."

It's old than you think.

Although, yes, this is something I'd prefer to treat as a strongly suggested guideline than a hard-and-fast rule.

Given that Silva posted a previous thread about this subject, long ago, which was also moved to Other games because we've established that this is a storygame, it shouldn't be a surprise to him or anyone else that we've moved this thread too.

RPGPundit

Fuck you.

Quote from: RPGPundit;601089Given that Silva posted a previous thread about this subject, long ago, which was also moved to Other games because we've established that this is a storygame, it shouldn't be a surprise to him or anyone else that we've moved this thread too.

RPGPundit

Huh?  Storygames and Role-playing games are not mutually exclusive.  That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Quote from: Internet Death;601247That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Welcome to TheRPGSite.

Quote from: RPGPundit;601089Given that Silva posted a previous thread about this subject, long ago, which was also moved to Other games because we've established that this is a storygame, it shouldn't be a surprise to him or anyone else that we've moved this thread too.

RPGPundit

Have you actually read it?

Just forget about the whole "thisisn'tanXXXgame" discussion, it's really not worth it. Let's just talk (up) the merits of Apocalypse World.

I was rather sceptic to begin with, even after reading through it the first time, but over the last year or so, I've been won over. Why?

Because it's good and freakin' dynamic.

In every fight we've had in my LotFP-campaign, there's been soooo many boring rolls ending in misses (combination of high AC/low attack bonuses). These misses, even for all my descriptions and battlefield bravado, does nothing for our game. They are misses and result in nothing.

In Apocalypse World, every bad roll creates new situations and more drama. When ever your character fails something, it has to make som hard choices. And these choices aren't just related to stats or numbers on the character sheet - it's stuff that affects the group and the world surrounding the characters. So just like a succes pushes the action forward, so does a failed roll. That's brilliant, especially combined with the list, both combat-stuff and in the playbooks, which makes these choices easy to use, but hard to make.

And by having the players making the decisions, you include them in the drama, more than if it is you as a gm making making up the outcome of fights and conflicts. This, in my oppinion, creates a perfect system for sandbox games, where no one knows where the session will end up.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;601365Just forget about the whole "thisisn'tanXXXgame" discussion, it's really not worth it. Let's just talk (up) the merits of Apocalypse World.

I was rather sceptic to begin with, even after reading through it the first time, but over the last year or so, I've been won over. Why?

Because it's good and freakin' dynamic.

In every fight we've had in my LotFP-campaign, there's been soooo many boring rolls ending in misses (combination of high AC/low attack bonuses). These misses, even for all my descriptions and battlefield bravado, does nothing for our game. They are misses and result in nothing.

In Apocalypse World, every bad roll creates new situations and more drama. When ever your character fails something, it has to make som hard choices. And these choices aren't just related to stats or numbers on the character sheet - it's stuff that affects the group and the world surrounding the characters. So just like a succes pushes the action forward, so does a failed roll. That's brilliant, especially combined with the list, both combat-stuff and in the playbooks, which makes these choices easy to use, but hard to make.

And by having the players making the decisions, you include them in the drama, more than if it is you as a gm making making up the outcome of fights and conflicts. This, in my oppinion, creates a perfect system for sandbox games, where no one knows where the session will end up.

Yeah, but that's only making decisions for a character you are guiding through the exploration of an imaginary world. It's not really roleplaying, now is it.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Ladybird;601392Yeah, but that's only making decisions for a character you are guiding through the exploration of an imaginary world. It's not really roleplaying, now is it.

:rolleyes:

Depends whether or not you're making those decisions as the character.

Quote from: RPGPundit;601089Given that Silva posted a previous thread about this subject, long ago, which was also moved to Other games because we've established that this is a storygame, it shouldn't be a surprise to him or anyone else that we've moved this thread too.

RPGPundit

Even by the site's shallow definition, AW is a RPG, as the decision-making is tied to in-setting consequences