thread: 2012-06-18 : Moves as Jumping-off Points
On 2012-06-19, Josh W wrote:
I can see the sort of thing you mean about protagonist vs protagonist moves:
One interesting thing about the way apocalypse world's moves resolve is that they go protagonist vs world. Protagonist acts, world shows the costs and tradeoffs of that action. And by default, player characters are also part of that world the mechanics speak for.
If your rules treat "characters" in a satisfying and respectful way, then players will be happy for the move to apply to their characters, but there can still be slip ups:
For example, suppose you use the old "seize by force" on a pacifistic angel PC. The move is implicitly assuming that he will trade harm for harm, that's part of the tradeoff.
And by implicitly assuming the kind of animosity, the kind of reaction, that the player character does, it could jar people.
In that situation, the rules for checking whether the move applies change; you don't have to just look at the PC anymore, but to the attitude of other characters, before we even know whether the move triggers.
Going aggro? Doesn't matter, the move can just trigger straight off. Same for stuff like in brain puppet strings.
I can imagine a version of seduce/manipulate that skips the "if they are a player" clause having a very different effect on play; everyone would be automatically "corrupt", and you wouldn't be able to know when your character has a price.
Like some of the more dystopian old Chinese stories.
You could probably fix that in specific cases with something like the following moves:
Take the high road
When your character would deal harm with obvious cause, roll+cool
on a hit, you hold back, on a 10+ choose three on a 7-9 choose two
Your restraint causes things to cool down for a sec
They recognise it and will return the favour sometime
You don?t take harm in the process
No-one else decides to stand up to them in your stead
and
When you are being drawn to betray your bonds of fidelity roll+bond
on a 10+ choose 2 on a 7-9 choose 1
you get +1 forward to act against those who encouraged you
you do not act under fire
you do not give in
If you do betray your bonds, mark xp.
Somewhat like instincts in burning wheel these kinds of moves would interrupt the general "how characters would act" assumptions. Also, like replacement effects in magic the gathering, instead of adding to what is happening, they warp existing mechanics into new forms.
Obviously, this changes the conversation flow to include interruptions, and risks adding the bottomless well of ?exception based design? to the game. There are monsters down there.
