Any thoughts on writing moves where the GM gets to choose a 7-9 result?
The arcane moves in my Ars Magica hack are intentionally left very open, but I could see some GMs wanting to have more control. One way of giving more control to the GM would be including a 7-9 option that says “the best you can do is a limited version”, and letting the GM choose instead of the player.
For reference the other items on the list at the moment are:
– suffer harm
– take -1 ongoing until you rest
– add to your warping total
– grant a Link (think Strings from Monsterhearts)
– draw unwanted attention
My instinct is to leave choice in the hands of the player when possible, but I wonder how different this really is from the “worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice” option from Do Something Under Fire.
What do you think?
My kneejerk reaction is to say leave 7-9 choices in the hands of the players. As a 7-9 result is still fundamentally a success, I like how the player has to decide the cost of that success.
For moves that provide a list of positive options, the player has to agonize over what positive option they won’t get to choose. For moves that provide a list of negative options (clauses that say things don’t happen), the player has to pick what screws them over. I really like that. Both as a player and as a GM.
For moves like Defy Danger and Act Under Pressure, a 7-9 is essentially allowing the GM to make up a list for the player to choose from, as the GM sets the parameters for the “worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice”.
The player getting to choose options on a result of 7-9 is part of what makes the game so engaging. The player has an active say in what happens to their character, rather than the GM deciding.
That being said, I am curious to see how having the GM choose options on a 7-9 changes the tone of the game. Have you looked at Monsterhearts, Jared Hunt? There is a move in that game (Turn Someone On), that has the target of your intended action choosing the results on a 7-9. That could be the GM in the case of an NPC or another player in the case of a PC. (The game specifically does that to prevent someone else from dictating how you react when you’re turned on.) It’s a great move because while a 7-9 is still a success for the player, they never know exactly what form that success will take.
That’s how I would model a “GM chooses on a 7-9 result” move. Don’t have the GM choose negative effects for the character, but have them choose positive effects.
Yeah, you can see the roots of “Turn Someone On” in both “Go Aggro” and “Seduce or Manipulate Someone” in AW.
I fully agree with your knee-jerk reaction, Christopher Stone-Bush. In fact, that’s what inspired the post.
It would be difficult to have the GM choose the positive effects of the moves I have in mind, but I’ll definitely keep the suggestion in mind. Thanks!
Man, that was a long kneejerk. Like I have arthritis or something 😉
I completely forgot that Go Aggro has the target chose on a 7-9 result. I’m playing favorites again (I love Monsterhearts).
I could see the GM choosing negative results in setting where the world was actively fighting against characters’ control. The Matrix springs to mind. The computer system is actively working against Neo and his team, trying to keep its “laws of reality” intact. In that case, the GM choosing negative options for the players on 7-9 results, which feels adversarial to me, fits the setting. The computer says “Well, you did it. But I’m still going to screw you in the process.”
In a setting like that, I would make most, or almost all of the “7-9 choice moves” GM choices. Especially Basic Moves. That would make the player choice 7-9 moves really special.
There’s no whenever possible about it. In all cases, the player of the character who has a choice to make, should get to make the choice.
If you have the wizard’s player make the choice, that means that in your world, in those magical circumstances, the wizard remains in control.
If you have the GM make the choice, that means that in your world, in those magical circumstances, the magic is in control, and is fundamentally part of the world.
If you want the magic to be in control but NOT to be fundamentally part of the world, you’ll need to find some other person or mechanism to make the choice.
Ah, ok. If I understand correctly, you’re saying that it’s not about one method being superior in a mechanical sense – it’s about deciding what is true in the setting fiction and consistently applying that.
Jared Hunt Exactly, yes!
I think http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2010/10/apocalypse-world-crossing-line.html is a good source on it