After a wonderful and very entertaining one-shot playtest of the Alpha v3 rules last Sunday*, I realized that the “timing” of the Moves wasn’t consistent, and set about to correct that. Thought I’d share it here, see what you folks think.
So in roleplaying games there tends to be a sequence to resolving an action:
- Player states action, describes it.
- Dice is rolled.
- Did the preciously described action work?
However, it leads to situations where the player says or does something really epic, rolls, and then the dice are like “lol nope” and then everyone is left narratively scrambling to figure out why/how it failed. At best, it feels like wasted effort. At worst, it can be harmful to the tone of the scene or the perception of the character.
A few Moves in v3 were already set up so that the primary description happened after the resolution instead, based on the one-roll combat resolution from UW1.
Basically, instead of: [Commit] -> [Describe] -> [Roll] -> [Result]
Those new moves were: [Commit] -> [Roll] -> [Result] -> [Describe]
Those Moves played out super well. They had a nice, structured-improv feel, where both player and GM were cooperating to steer the scene to where the dice results ended up. It was less a question of “why that happened” and more and exploration of “how did we make that happen”. Knowing where the scene is going (pre-resolving) allows the table to lay groundwork in their rp, and shape results that are true to the dice and true to their characters/situation.
I’ve since set out to re-write all the Moves to follow that improv-inspired structure. I think it’ll really set UW2 apart, and allow for more cinematic, coherent Move-resolutions.
For example, this is the old Counsel Move (of the Advocate career)
Counsel – Advocate Move
When your rhetoric fills a heart with passion and resolve, Roll+Influence.
When your wisdom tempers and shapes a plan of action, Roll+Intellect.
On a 10+, the advice becomes a key factor in their future decision-making. They will try to uphold this new outlook, and incorporate it into their existing beliefs.
On a 7-9, they accept your counsel (as a 10+ result) but choose one, and the GM will elaborate:
-
Bond of trust: You develop a connection. They become important to you.
-
Second thoughts: It won’t last. They’ll reconsider their position soon.
-
Painful truths: It causes social, economic, emotional, or physical harm.
On a 6-, there has been a profound misunderstanding. They take the wrong lesson to heart, and will act on it zealously.
And this is the new one
Counsel – Advocate Move
When you inspire action and resolve with passionate rhetoric, Roll+Influence.
When you instill patience and understanding with quiet wisdom, Roll+Intellect.
On a 10+, describe a new truth and how your words mesh it with the subject’s existing beliefs, history, and emotional state. The subject will strive to live up to that new outlook.
On a 7-9, describe a new truth (as a 10+ result), but choose a secondary effect of the exchange:
-
Bond of trust: You develop a connection. They become important to you.
-
Second thoughts: It won’t last. They’ll reconsider their position soon.
-
Painful truths: It causes social, economic, emotional, or physical harm.
On a 6-, create a profound misunderstanding or miscommunication. The subject draws all the wrong conclusions and will act on them zealously.
Of course, “how to run/adjudicate the timing of these Moves” will be a big section in the GM guidance chapter. I totally get that this is a fairly big departure from traditional “roll-to-hit”.
With the work on the Asset rules almost done, I should have an Alpha v4 in a couple of weeks, so hopefully the new Moves will test well. So far they seem quite promising.
*(Would folks be interested in short playtest reports? I can totally write up little summaries).
