narrating outcomes.

ok, a thing that I've always believed to be true about the AW engine.

A move is triggered by an action of the PC in the fiction.  Once the appropriate thing has happened, the move triggers and dice are rolled.

The outcome of the dice are the domain of the MC.  By this I mean: it is the MC's place to say what happens as the results of what the PC did, staying true to a) what has happened so far in the game b) the intentions of the PC c) the wording of the move d) the intentions/drives/etc of the world and the NPC's.  he must respect that a hit and a partial hit both are hits and should be treated as such.

The reason I bring this up is that both while playing as well as hearing accounts of play, non-MC players have/seem to be narrarating the outcome of their action.  Which is fine, all is cool, but I interpret the subtext as being "The MC is ceding the right for them to do so because the outcome doesn't impact her fronts/the desires of the NPC's that she is responsible for."

Thoughts?

I'm very interested to hear from folks who have been running this longer than I have, but my first reaction is that this comes down more to one's personal GMing/MCing style than anything specifically in the rules. Personally, I don't really mind if my players want to follow their 10+ roll with some extra detail; it saves me the trouble of coming up with the details on the fly myself, and it shows that they're getting into it. Nobody has ever tried to do that on a 7-9 or a miss with me, probably because the moves are effectively worded to indicate when MC input is required. (E.g., act under fire: The MC will offer you a worse outcome....)

I actually find Apocalypse World a pretty refreshing game to run because it takes a lot of pressure off me. Prep between sessions is minimal compared to an on-rails dungeon delve or complex story with planned narrative branches, and I'm trying to take it to heart that I only make moves when players flub a roll or look to me to see what happens. As long as they're talking amongst themselves or tearing stuff up with style, I get to sit back and watch. "Play to find out what happens" can take precedence over "play to tell them what happens," and I appreciate it.

Can you point to a specific example? In most cases in my experience players narrate their preferred outcome before rolling the dice and get that on 10+, or else I clarify that with them once the dice are cast if necessary.

Remember that after every move you ask "what do you do?". So, regardless of the outcome, their reaction and/or follow-through is theirs to determine and express. Could that be what you're hearing and reading about?

... non-MC players have/seem to be narrarating the outcome of their action.
 
Thoughts?

This: Crossing the Line by John Harper. In short: don't do it.

... I only make moves when players flub a roll or look to me to see what happens.

No. The MC makes Moves all the time. The MC sets up the action. Here.

"Play to find out what happens" can take precedence over "play to tell them what happens," and I appreciate it.

Yes, but you are taking it too far. The MC is still there to put pressure on the player characters. The MC doesn't just sit around and watch the PCs and wait for them to fail a roll (and definitely doesn't let the players narrate, unless the Move specifically says they do). The MC needs to bring it. At the very least make Soft Moves and ask.

It's a conversation, right? So when is it the right time to speak in a conversation? Sometimes, when there's a lull. Sometimes, when someone looks at you expecting a response. Sometimes, when someone says something that demands a response. Sometimes, when you have something to interject and you're not interrupting someone else.

Having the players narrate outcomes just seems to be an part of the MC's general power to ask questions and decry responsibility. "So Millions, everything goes your way. What does that look like?"

It's a conversation, right?

Is this in response to me? If it is in response to me then my response is: that isn't narrating an outcome. Neither is it Crossing the Line.

Anyway, yeppers I agree noclue! The players play their characters and the MC plays the world. And the MC makes the characters lives interesting by asking questions. Everything from "what do you do?" to "where did [your character] get the grenade launcher?".

Quote from: noclue on September 04, 2012, 03:39:03 PM

It's a conversation, right?

Is this in response to me? If it is in response to me then my response is: that isn't narrating an outcome. Neither is it Crossing the Line.

Anyway, yeppers I agree noclue! The players play their characters and the MC plays the world. And the MC makes the characters lives interesting by asking questions. Everything from "what do you do?" to "where did [your character] get the grenade launcher?".

We are in agreement!

Quote from: JasonT on September 04, 2012, 12:06:43 PM

... I only make moves when players flub a roll or look to me to see what happens.

No. The MC makes Moves all the time. The MC sets up the action. Here.

Maybe there's been a miscommunication somewhere here. I've read that post, and that's definitely how I run the game. Is my group unusual in that my players look to me to find out what happens a lot? I'm constantly setting up action, but I also get more downtime from narration than I do in other games. (Maybe that's because the leading questions at the beginning of the game set the tone for players being able to narrate a bit more about what they're doing than they'd bother with in other games..?)

"Play to find out what happens" can take precedence over "play to tell them what happens," and I appreciate it.

Yes, but you are taking it too far. The MC is still there to put pressure on the player characters. The MC doesn't just sit around and watch the PCs and wait for them to fail a roll (and definitely doesn't let the players narrate, unless the Move specifically says they do). The MC needs to bring it. At the very least make Soft Moves and ask.

I suppose I'm not sure why what I'm describing is "taking it too far." Too far for what? What's fair to players? Following the rules as written? For the game to work at all? Or just for the game to work for other kinds of groups?

I let characters narrate some outcomes, especially if the outcome is very definite: the PC very much got the local doc into the sack, very much killed the local doc, etc.  Rather than narrating yet another NPC death (or seduction), I hand it over to the player to say how it happened.  It gives them a chance to detail what their character is about.  It's meaningful if Wembley dodges and weaves and dances about before landing the perfect blow, vs. leaping on the doc with a scream and beating his skull into paste.  It's meaningful if Wembley engages in a playful romp and some pillow talk, instead of just dropping trou and squeezing his eyes shut until the doc is done.

I let characters narrate some outcomes, especially if the outcome is very definite: the PC very much got the local doc into the sack, very much killed the local doc, etc.  Rather than narrating yet another NPC death (or seduction), I hand it over to the player to say how it happened.  It gives them a chance to detail what their character is about.  It's meaningful if Wembley dodges and weaves and dances about before landing the perfect blow, vs. leaping on the doc with a scream and beating his skull into paste.  It's meaningful if Wembley engages in a playful romp and some pillow talk, instead of just dropping trou and squeezing his eyes shut until the doc is done.

Yeah, this is what I mean when I say I let my players narrate their own outcomes. Note that in these examples, there's no indication of how NPCs react; I do think that's firmly understood as under MC control, so I have yet to see anybody try to do that. Maybe that's more of an issue with players who have more experience with GMless/story games, but that doesn't describe my group. I'm just pleased to get them to describe a bit more of how they're doing whatever they're doing.

I let characters narrate some outcomes, especially if the outcome is very definite: the PC very much got the local doc into the sack, very much killed the local doc, etc.  Rather than narrating yet another NPC death (or seduction), I hand it over to the player to say how it happened.  It gives them a chance to detail what their character is about.  It's meaningful if Wembley dodges and weaves and dances about before landing the perfect blow, vs. leaping on the doc with a scream and beating his skull into paste.  It's meaningful if Wembley engages in a playful romp and some pillow talk, instead of just dropping trou and squeezing his eyes shut until the doc is done.

In this case though you still determine what the outcome is, you're just allowing your player to elaborate, and s/he still does that "from within their character's experience and frame of reference."

EDIT: the quote comes from John Harper's article.

I suppose I'm not sure why what I'm describing is "taking it too far." Too far for what? What's fair to players? Following the rules as written? For the game to work at all? Or just for the game to work for other kinds of groups?

So you said:

this comes down more to one's personal GMing/MCing style than anything specifically in the rules.

Cool. Play how you want!  :)   I'm just trying to give "by the book rules-as-written" examples for why not to do because...

I've just seen a lot of the "MC follows the players around and doesn't do anything unless the players fail a roll" play...

... take it to heart that I only make moves when players flub a roll or look to me to see what happens.

Because you can also say "Bish walks into the bar with his gun out and points it at your head, what do you do?". Not just when nothing is going on or when the players are looking at you, but all the time. Because you are making the player character's lives interesting.

... especially if the outcome is very definite

And that is something the character would know, so you wouldn't be Crossing the Line, right. Successful attempts are different from failures, because players can't make their own Hard Moves.

But that isn't to say that the MC couldn't narrate the outcome of a success as well. I mean everyone was at the table when things went down. Unless it was a question and then the player answers as the character would answer.

I'm not seeing the conflict with what I said and what you said.

I let characters narrate some outcomes, especially if the outcome is very definite: the PC very much got the local doc into the sack, very much killed the local doc, etc.  Rather than narrating yet another NPC death (or seduction), I hand it over to the player to say how it happened.

How would this work? I mean, everyone is at the table talking and “to do it, do it”. So something happened between doc is alive and killing the doc and doc is dead.

I mean the player didn’t just narrate, “so I killed the doc” or even, “I go to the doc’s place and I jab a meat hook into his brain pan because he let my brother die”. There had to be more happening in the fiction, yeah? Something happened.

So it probably looked more like:

Player: I go to the doc’s place with a meat hook. I’m gonna kill him for letting my brother die.
MC: okay, do you say anything to him or just stab him from behind or what?
Player: I want him to know why so I say…

See? There isn’t really anything for the player to narrate because we are all there participating in the conversation.

Unless the MC asked, “why did you kill the doc?” and the player answers, “he let my brother die”. But even then the MC can’t say what the character did! The player could say, “I didn’t kill him” and then the MC could respond, “well Bish thinks you did and he is at the bar with a gun pointed at your head and yelling at you”.

None of that is narrating an outcome. Although some of those examples did very much Cross some Lines.

In most cases in my experience players narrate their preferred outcome before rolling the dice and get that on 10+

While I don't see a problem with the MC deciding after the roll to take player input on what happens, this seems like an exceptionally bad idea. Pre-roll narration probably shouldn't include an outcome, with the possible exception of certain applications of Go Aggro -- though even there, ideally the player should just be describing what they do. What they do, NOT what happens as a result of what they do.

"I convince him to fight with my gang against the mutants" is not acceptable narration in AW -- you have to say what you are DOING to convince him, and if that triggers a move then you find out whether he is convinced, or how he reacts otherwise. It's fine to clarify intent in the pre-roll stage ("Okay so you're telling him all about how dangerous the mutants are, but is that because you're trying to get him on your side or what?"), but that's the limit of it.

It's fine to clarify intent in the pre-roll stage ("Okay so you're telling him all about how dangerous the mutants are, but is that because you're trying to get him on your side or what?"), but that's the limit of it.

This is what I was talking about when I said that. Usually it's clear what the player wants to accomplish when s/he picks up the dice. If it's not I ask questions until it is, before any roll is made. On 10+, that thing is accomplished, and I consider its consequences (intended and otherwise) and proceed. I guess in this case replace "preferred outcome" with "intention" if it helps.

In your example, "I convince him to fight with my gang against the mutants" leads to me saying "cool, what do you do (or say) to convince them?"