How do people in this community feel about moves that have “passive triggers”? By that I mean moves that are triggered when something happens to the PC, rather than triggered by the PC doing something (like the harm move in AW).
I’m thinking about harm/morale moves and a sanity check type move in Malleus, but the trigger for those moves would be out of the hands of the player, and I don’t know if that feel right to me.
I mean – what’s the game about? If it fits that, then sure. Most of the time I’m not a fan of them but I can get on board with specific cases that fit the fiction you’re trying to create.
The harm move is triggered by the player though because they’re the ones triggering something in the fiction and then trading harm or taking harm as established, so I wouldn’t really call it a passive trigger. That said, I’m not familiar with Malleus or what it’s trying to do, but I have heard it mentioned!
Gut feeling though – if it feels wrong to you in your game, I wouldn’t do it. Unless it’s not a hack you’re doing and it’s found in the book of which you are playing from, about how you play the game, then it’s probably there for a reason and just need to work through why it’s there and why it feels strange to you.
The game is about hunting monsters in 17th century Europe, but the structure is more based around shows like Buffy or Supernatural, rather than a 17th century source. While it is about monsters, I’m thinking sanity/horror moves might be a bad fit, since they aren’t really a thing in the shows I mentioned.
Dave Sealy Yeah if you want those to be the touchstones I wouldn’t incorporate sanity and horror into it unless it’s got a lovecraft thing going on. Which maybe those shows need too, right? Like those shows aren’t really about the horror of encountering those things which could be a new thing to tap into. Like maybe the thing is they are these hunters who are ravaged mentally by the horrors as well. Could be neat to fuse those two together. But it’s completely up to you as to what you want the game to be about and imply in the fiction with the mechanics.
I’d still say it shouldn’t be a passive trigger though then, it could be another harm situation where you are like, OK, you can totally go up against the monster but it’s freakish and scary, etc. So when you do that thing this happens – so it’s an active choice they’re making to confront these things. Maybe each monster has a thing tied to the players where it’s a balancing act like I’m Undying. You’re trying to maintain your humanity but also be a strong monster – and it’s this fine line. Maybe it’s something like that you’d be into, then.
The current draft is here, if you want to get a better feel for the game: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yiHO1Wl2fktXqIWs-zbmn8EColkeNtLyFNoKaX8GIB4/edit?usp=sharing
There are a number of very new changes in this draft in repsonse to playtest feedback, which haven’t had a chance to hit the table yet.
Is it OK If I make comment/suggestions on the google doc?
I think passive triggers aren’t inherently bad, unless I am misunderstanding your definition. For example announcing future badness or working along a countdown clock both have little to do with the characters moves as their role is instead to open the game up to future PC actions.
I think what you are talking about is more along the lines of player volition…can they make their own choices here? I think that if I was introducing a ‘sanity mechanic’ into a PbtA game I would look along the lines of becoming your darkest self from Monsterhearts. The player could ‘choose’ to go bonkers for a bit to avoid emotional trauma and then play out that choice in a way that makes sense to them.
I did it, seems really cool. I like what you’ve integrated from other systems – especially beliefs. I’m all about having drives and beliefs and things of that nature for them. It does feel like sanity is at odds with it, in my gut I feel like it’s not a good fit, too. It does feel too light, though.
The closest I’d want to go, generally speaking, is things like the Darkest Self in Monsterhearts, as Daniel Steadman mentioned. It’s pretty damn important to have the players on board if their character’s agency is restricted or their character concept is violated.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with them, but be very clear about what they add to the game.
The AW harm move largely serves as the “damage roll” in AW. It’s the randomizer that means you can’t just do the math and say “pfft, it only does 2-harm, I ignore it.” And harm is usually something you see coming, and have an opportunity to do something about.
Having a morale or sanity move (even if it’s just “act under fire” or the equivalent to act in the face of a scary monster) means you’re making stress and fear and panic an important element. You’re potentially interrupting the PC’s ability to initiate their desired action.
That makes a game a lot less Big Damn Heroes and much more Little Folk Struggling. Which might be awesome. It’s great in the Regiment, for example.
But based on your description of Malleus, it sounds like a very different sort of game.
Yeah, based on feedback, and on reflection as to my intent with the themes of the game I don’t think moves of the kind I mention above are really appropriate in this instance. In thinking about it there actually is a move in the game that has a kind of passive trigger related to gaining spiritual corruption, but like AW’s harm move, players only gain corruption by their own actions.
On the chance anyone wants to keep up with the development of the game, or take part in a playtest – there is a community here: https://plus.google.com/communities/109980577011556287035
If a PC can lose sanity from merely seeing something horrible, it puts them in a position of powerlessness, which is appropriate for horror but not for action/adventure. It seems like corruption or loss of faith resulting from a PC’s own choices might be a better fit.