Generative resolution

[thefutilist]

None of this really captures specific action declarations by the player. My concern here is that is that the basic declaration - climb a mountain, isn't actually one that a player in any PbtA game would ever make. You might climb a wall, but a mountain climb is a whole series of things, not a single action. If you reduce the zoom to specific actions, like climbing a specific cliff face, things get more manageable.

There's another problem with the example, which is your move from 'the mountain wants to kill me' (which is actually really cool) to your positing death as an outcome for the action roll. That's also not how PbtA game actions and adjudication work. If I put death on the table as part of adjudication it's usually a signal to the players that they need to adjust their action declaration. Even if the situation was dire, my consequence is never going to be 'you die' but at worst perhaps, 'you fall' which is still something that can be adjusted based on specific die rolls and the actions of other players. That might well mean death depending on outcomes, but if we want to analyze how this all works we need to be using examples that actually match game play.

I think we play rather differently. I find scale is determined in the orchestration phase you alluded to. I can see my players saying ‘climb a mountain’ or ‘bring order to the holding’ or any number of such large scale actions. Whether they’re broken down into component parts seems to be mainly on the GM. The AW text itself gives multiple examples of this, a lot of them in the section on gigs. My line of thinking tends to be on whether changing circumstances will give rise to different stakes I’m interested in. If not then I increase the scope.

As to death being an outcome. I do use it if circumstances inspire me to use it, it’s not frequent but it’s on the table. Although, like the situation with the mountain, I’m constantly telling the consequences and asking. I’m not just having people make death saves from nowhere.

 

[pemerton]

The problem with John’s explanation is that the set up and follow through aren’t ‘necessarily’ the connected parts. The connected part is the conflict trigger, which a lot of the time will be activated on the PC side. When you do X then roll.

In the examples John gives, he’s both (1) not giving us a lot of context to determine position (2) coming in so hot he’s almost framing things like a saving throw.

You sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?

Let’s say I point a gun at him and press my finger to my lips. I’m going aggro. Then yeah the miss could well be he just starts shouting “intruder” because the implication of the go aggro is that I want him to shut up. There are oppositional forces at play that come into play in response to what I want.

If he sees me and I decide to seduce/manipulate, then depending on what I say, on a miss he might not be shouting “intruder” at all. The action I take is what gives the miss context.

Is the conflict trigger the connected part, or the connecting part? That is, the bridge between set-up and consequence.

Let me spell out your elaboration of Harper's example:

MC: OK, so you sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?

Player: I point a gun at him and press my finger to my lips.

MC: OK, you're going aggro. Make the roll.

Player: <rolls and misses>

MC: Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder!​

You describe this as the action giving the miss context. I'd probably begin my description by saying the player's choice of action establishes (or at least helps to establish) what's at stake: will Plover yield to the PC's threat? And the miss then determines that rather than the player (and PC) getting what they wanted, Plover does what the player (and PC) didn't want him to do: namely, raise the alarm.

Change the declared action and, naturally, the consequence will change:

MC: OK, so you sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?

Player: I point a gun at him and press my finger to my lips.

MC: OK, you're going aggro. Make the roll.

Player: <rolls and misses>

MC: Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder!​

If the player declares a different action, it seems pretty natural that the consequence might be different; although it might not be:

MC: OK, so you sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?

Player, recalling some previous episode of play: I know that Plover really wants my fancy knife. So I pull it out of my belt - decorated sheath and all - and slide it across the floor to Plover, while putting my finger to my lips.

MC: OK, roll for Seduce/Manipulate - on any hit Plover stays quiet, because you've already provided assurance.

Player: <rolls and misses>​

Now it seems that it might be open to the MC, here, to go down the same path: Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder! But maybe the MC goes with something different: Plover shakes his head, and slides the knife back. It looks like he's about to give the alarm. What do you do? The different PC action certainly opens up the possibility of a different MC response.

So anyway, I agree that Harper hasn't included declared actions, and hence moves, in his examples.

If I want to get into the garage without being seen then we ask if there is anyone would could see me. Yeah maybe, so that’s the fire.

10: I get in unseen

7-9: Plover is right there about to notice you any second now. What do you do?

Miss: Plover sees you in the act of sneaking


Both the 7-9 and the miss are failures of me sneaking V Plovers perception.

So the miss in this case just determines that you’re seen. It’s the subsequent narration, where the MC makes their move. Which could very well be, Plover starts screaming “intruder”.

Yeah, as I was writing the previous part of this reply it occurred to me that another way to read his examples (maybe not the way he intended) is not as set-up/follow through but as providing examples of different sorts of MC response. I wrote up the following, and only when I finished writing it up did I realise that - I think - you're making the same point in what I just quoted.

Here's how I wrote up my thought:

The established scene is that there's a guy with a chainsaw who's hostile to the PC. The player declares that the PC runs past the guard. The GM calls for a roll, for acting under fire - where the fire is this hostile guy with his chainsaw:

Hit on a 7-9: He swings the chainsaw right at your head. What do you do?
Miss: The chainsaw bites into your face, spraying chunks of bloody flesh all over the room. 3-harm and make the harm move!​

The established scene is that the the only way the PC knows to get inside the building is via the garage; and Plover's on guard. The player has their PC go into the garage, and the GM calls for a roll, for acting under fire - where the fire is will Plover notice you?:

Hit on a 7-9: You sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?
Miss: Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder!​

The established scene is that the PC and the NPC have had a fight, and now (the next day) the player has their PC go to the NPC's house:

Player: I knock on the door.
MC: She opens it. She's scowling at you. What do you do? [The GM provides an opportunity/]
Player: I say, "I'm sorry". [This doesn't trigger a player-side move, and hands the GM a golden opportunity.]
MC decides to go soft: She stares at you coldly. 'Leave me alone,' she says. What do you do?
Or, alternatively, MC decides to go hard: 'Don't come back here again.' She slams the door in your face and you hear the locks click home.​

Now I’d probably pre-commit to him shouting ‘intruder’ before the roll because that’s what dice are for. Which does make me seem pedantic but I think the distinction (between the fact of of who wins and the narration) can matter more or less depending on circumstance, so it is worth noting. Especially if you’re playing a game where the narration can be given to either player or GM, or is up in the air about it.

I don't know if I've followed this properly. Are you saying that the MC should pre-commit, so that the dice roll is to determine whose narration comes true rather than who gets to now narrate?

 

[pemerton]

Here’s something from Apocalypse World first edition.

Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If they hear her, she’s screwed (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent teenage sentry.) She hits the roll with an 8, so the ugly choice it is. “ere’s some kid out here, huddled under this flimsy tin roof with a mug of who-knows-what. You think you’re past him but he startles and looks right at you. You can kill him before he makes a noise, but you’ll have to do it right this second. Do you?” “Yes, duh,” she says



I’ve thought about this example a lot. It isn’t the second edition. It’s also very clearly related to no-myth hit the flag play. One notable difference is that the generated choice seems to be what the MC would think is an ugly choice, not one that has to do with the characters morality (or even the players).

My thoughts on role-play generally are that the above example is tricky. Ideally you’d populate the world in such a fashion that sometimes honesty demands such choices. How much do you reach for them though? The example is a little contrived for my taste. Although does that suggest a continuum? A difference in degree rather than kind?

Similar situations have come up in my play, on the 7-9, but I didn’t have to generate a particular person. Although we’re returning to the idea of when the generation happened. I don’t really have any clear answers.

I've read, and re-read, that example. Rising conflict across a moral line: as you say, the ugly choice isn't about the player's priorities for the character, but the GM's priorities for prompting the player to reveal the truth about Keeler - ie she's a ruthless killer.

Presumably a permissible variation - and maybe the one the GM uses next time it fits the fiction? - is that the innocent victim is someone that Keeler has an instrumental reason to care for (eg one of her gang, or someone related to one of her gang).

And then the next time, it can be someone Keeler might actually not want to kill because of her own connection to them.

I'm also reminded of In A Wicked Age: narrate by reference to multiple senses, including a moral sense.

I've done this sort of thing in 4e D&D. And in Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel and Torchbearer: where you take something that is "flagged" by the player for the PC, but present it or threaten it through a moral lens that maybe isn't the character's - are they really going to do that? (I've had Player A have their PC do stuff that shocked player B in one session; and then had Player B have their PC do stuff that shocked player A in a later session.)

 

[thefutilist]

I've read, and re-read, that example. Rising conflict across a moral line: as you say, the ugly choice isn't about the player's priorities for the character, but the GM's priorities for prompting the player to reveal the truth about Keeler - ie she's a ruthless killer.

Presumably a permissible variation - and maybe the one the GM uses next time it fits the fiction? - is that the innocent victim is someone that Keeler has an instrumental reason to care for (eg one of her gang, or someone related to one of her gang).

And then the next time, it can be someone Keeler might actually not want to kill because of her own connection to them.

I'm also reminded of In A Wicked Age: narrate by reference to multiple senses, including a moral sense.

I've done this sort of thing in 4e D&D. And in Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel and Torchbearer: where you take something that is "flagged" by the player for the PC, but present it or threaten it through a moral lens that maybe isn't the character's - are they really going to do that? (I've had Player A have their PC do stuff that shocked player B in one session; and then had Player B have their PC do stuff that shocked player A in a later session.)

Some notes for later:

The 2E version.

Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her a hard bargain: she can get to Dremmer, sure, but only by breaking cover and alerting his guards.) She hits the roll with an 11, so good for her. “Great. You’re able to avoid the sentries and make your way in. You’re crouching down by a big piece of fallen wall, looking into Dremmer’s camp. He’s eating with a couple other guys, they have no idea you’re here.”

A snippet from a text about choosing moves from the Magpie website:

Let’s say that I’m GMing and the Janus, a character named Grasshopper, has been making things difficult for criminal mastermind villain the Spider. Grasshopper is confronting the Spider in his office, and she’s trying to get a read on him. She gets a miss, though, so I’m allowed to make as hard a move as I choose. I could say, “The Spider smirks at you. Some of his goons enter, holding your brother—and they have a gun to his head.” I’m making the move “Capture someone” again, but this version is on the harder end of the spectrum—it implies that Grasshopper’s brother was captured off-screen, without the PCs having a chance to stop it. But this move also fits in with Masks’s principles, agendas, and the particular issues and GM moves associated with the Janus playbook. All that makes it a good move, well outside of whether or not it’s irrevocable.

If I said, instead, “The Spider smirks at you. Some of his goons enter, holding your brother—and they have a gun to his head. The Spider nods, and one of the goons fires their gun at point blank. Your brother slumps to the ground,” then I’m not making a good move. This move is harder, more obviously irrevocable...but it violates one of the principles of the game, to make human life meaningful. The same move in Apocalypse World proper, though, works! If we were playing AW, and I said, “Spider smirks at you. Jackabacka enters the room, holding your brother—and she has a gun to his head. Spider nods, and Jackabacka fires her gun at point blank. Your brother slumps to the ground,” then that could fit the agendas, principles, and moves of AW just fine. It’s following AW’s principle of “Look through crosshairs,” and it could easily be a threat move for the Warlord Spider,

More later

 

[thefutilist]

Here’s an example of act taken from one of my actual games.

The Driver (pc) is trying to stop the Daughter (npc) of the Gunlugger (pc) from running off to join a raid on the broken city (a very dangerous place).

They talk and he escalates to physically restraining her. I can’t remember my exact thought process at the time but I called for an act roll. I do remember the fail would be she slips away and the success is he does restrain her.

He hit a 7-9 and so I said ‘she’s fighting back a bit more than you can handle. You can restrain her by getting more forceful but you’ll end up hurting her, otherwise let her go.’

I think if I was doing the same thing now I might call for a seize by force roll. Although you get a weird thing where 7-9 can potentially overlap with a miss. That’s a whole other convo though.


My general take on narrativist games very broadly. Is that I don’t want the GM to present moral choices to me. I hate it in fact. Or more specifically, I don’t want the GM to have to reach at all to present a moral choice.

So the 1E example does seem to cross a line but barely, that’s one of the reasons I find it interesting.

The MASKS example I find horrific. Triggered from a perception move. Hitting flags. Totally eliding the moral character of the spider and reducing him to a trope set piece through which the GM delivers a ‘bang’.