For a 7-9 result, do you think a pick-from-a-list hard choice takes agency away from the MC? Would the game be better served by giving the MC an opportunity to make a move? The MC definitely has the option to offer an opportunity with or without a cost, right?
For a 7-9 result, do you think a pick-from-a-list hard choice takes agency away from the MC?
For a 7-9 result, do you think a pick-from-a-list hard choice takes agency away from the MC?
I currently have all of the basic moves for my game advising players to “expect trouble” on 7-9 while 6 or less says “prepare for the worst”.
Here is how I summarize moves: When a player encounters a problem they make a move, roll the dice and modify the result a bit per the rules. Then, with mind to the final result, another player reacts by introducing a new problem: if it’s a low result, it’ll be a severe problem right away; if it’s just good enough, it’ll be a less severe yet still immediate problem; if it’s a high result, there will still be a less severe problem but it’ll be just out of your immediate way. The new problem prompts the original player to move again.
Why does the MC need to have agency? You don’t need to be a fan of the MC. The MC’S life doesn’t need to be interesting. The game definitively is not about the MC, it’s about the PC’S.
Is that fair though? The MC is a player too.
Why is fairness part of the conversation with regard to the roll of an MC?
I’ve always thought it important not to discount the MC as also being a player of the game.
I don’t see why it can’t work either way. It’s a design call, and either is fair. Consider that “acting under fire”, for example, puts the choice in the MCs’ hands, effectively.
To add a little: I’d say the main default question, for me, is “who talks next?”. If the 7-9 result is handing off the conversation to the MC, I generally like the decision to be in the player’s hands; if the player should be deciding what to do next, then having the MC make the call is generally a good choice. I try to maintain the back-and-forth of the AW conversation. It’s generally less fun if it’s just the same player making a move, rolling dice, choosing options, and then talking some more.
But the nature of the game and what that decision says about being someone in that particular game may lead you to choose otherwise.
The thing is, the person running any game has a huge amount of implied power. There is a huge tendency for players to wait for the person running to say what happens. Many games try to divest this power by being gm less and splitting the responsibility, but aw tries to destroy it. The mc is a passive role in the system and that works exceedingly well. Stop thinking in terms of fair, it just isn’t worthwhile here. Instead, think in terms of awesome. If everyone thinks awesome things are happening, who cares if it’s fair and balanced? So the role of the mc isn’t to judge or to be active, it is to ensure awesome.
good god, i don’t want more shit i have to come up with wholecloth as MC, please god let me choose stuff from a list!
that’s seriously one of the biggest problems i have with so many AW hacks, that they turn ALL failure into “the mc makes a hard move” instead of just the base moves. that just winds up putting too much creative burden on the MC for my tastes
Hmm. I would not say that the MC is a passive role at all. and to take agency entirely away from the MC is to make the MC merely a facilitator of other people’s fun, which kind of the opposite of “make the character’s lives interesting to you” If I have no agency as MC, why would I play? Why would I bring my time, energy, and creative powers to that? And looking at the hard moves, it doesn’t say “make them suffer horribly”, it says “here;s a list of options, including give them something no strings attached”
In the flow of conversation, sometimes it is the MC’s turn to talk, and for more than facilitation and adjudication.
I would focus on what moves are for. To me, they are world building tools– channels for the fiction. Triggers say “here is a situation you might want to drive towards” and results say “here are the possible outcomes of that situation in this world”.
Limited 7-9 results, then, say that you’re taking specific risks by invoking the trigger. For example, Pack Alpha choice list doesn’t just say “this can go well, or moderately, or badly”, it says you might have to impose your will by force. It tells you what your gang is like and what it’s like to rule them.
Really interesting discussion. I find myself agreeing with contradictory proposals. Will cogitate on this.
As an MC, I do find the middle result of “act under fire” challenging to adjudicate, because it’s so wide-open. But the game needs moves like that. A game of AW is not a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure.
I think there should be a variety of moves with a mix of player controls. That allows things to go not just badly (which is fun), but also sideways.
I think having the MC choose on the 7-9 would be an inverse Czege principle. The MC would be setting up the conflict and the resolution.
I’d say that’s just the regular Czege principle, no need for inversions of any kind. 🙂
But I agree: that’s what I was trying to get at above, in my couple of comments. Depends on how the move works, and how you want the conversation to flow next. I generally look to make sure any particular move doesn’t turn into the same person talking, rolling, then talking some more, to preserve the back-and-forth.
I don’t really see it as the GM being the one with the czege principle. The moves snowball would be interrupted if the player makes a hard choice instead of the GM making a move, right? The player is still a making a move, describing how they are making that move, and rolling for it. And with a 7-9 they still technically succeed.
I suspect the best way to approach it is to leave it to the player to describe how they want to succeed, and the MC then makes their move. The MC move can be a simple question like, “if you go through with killing him everyone else is going to come at you.” That makes it into a hard choice still but gives the player their success and the MC their move.
Coming from a “succeed with cost” mindset. I like the players choosing the framework of their own horror.
“Your fellow EMT cones in the room to help you get the girl released from her straps. You almost all get out but a security door slams shut behind you crushing your friend to death as she lagged behind the rest of you”
Personally, I think pc choices are best when they have to choose between a list of bad things. It makes the choice of punishment agonizing and memorable.