From the Basic Moves 2.0
The Advance Corruption option for of Let It Out seems either troublesome or just not worded properly…Are there going to be a set list of manifestations to choose from or is it meant to imply that I can mark a Corruption and take a permanent +1 forward?
Nope! It’s up to your MC to say what the manifestation looks like. In one playtest, Nathan Paoletta’s Oracle was suddenly able to talk to the dead, while Travis Scott’s Wolf gained control of his shapeshifting. Both chose to mark corruption to keep their new powers.
Well, I could hardly imagine NOT taking the corruption in those cases 🙂 Is that the intent? To be a corruption carrot?
The intent is to make the choice yours. If you want to keep it, mark the corruption. If you think the power isn’t worth it, let it go… and cling to your humanity. 😀
I am just thinking of the Principle: Trust your players to create problems for themselves, then push! AND the Agenda: Keep the characters lives out of control and evolving.
This move would certainly seem to be a useful tool in keeping those two ideals on point.
Dave Bozarth I entirely agree it is better to leave it in the players hands.
I think that in my initial reading of it, I see it as a way to let players get new powers at the cost of corruption (which I like) being freeform and unstructured is where I see issues. Both for the MC that may not be thinking ahead at the implications of those powers being permanent and possibly without further cost
I think the MC has to be really careful here to make the new power interesting without being overpowering.
Are you going to take a page from Worlds in Peril and create in-depth review / explanations if each move? I hope with some examples of maybe deceptively over powered applications of the moves
Dave Bozarth – Of course! The full text will have a ton of information about each move, including ideas that capture good and bad uses.