Spellcasting – no GM move on a miss?
So in play we were slightly confused by the wording of Cast Spell as it states “on 6-, mark XP, choose 1 from the list below, and then roll on the Arcane Accident table.” – does this imply the GM doesn’t get to make a move on a miss? (It did to us) If so this undermines the magic principle in the main rules which states “As a rule of thumb, keep in mind that when a spell or invocation goes wrong, its repercussions should be in proportion to the intended effect.” (nice IMO!). The removal of a GM move and its replacement with the Arcane Accident table reduces GM authority and ability to inflict this proportional misfire as the AA table includes some results that are explicitly proportionate and some which are not/are weak.
If there is a GM move as well as the AA roll then maybe players could justifiably feel put upon for 3 bad things happening from one roll? (pick from list, AA table + GM move)
The rule of thumb to “keep repercussions in proportion to intended effect” is meant to apply to those AA rolls where proportion is mentioned (1-4 and 7-8 on the table). I’ll make a note to clarify the wording in those areas.
And no, the GM is not intended to make a move on a 6-. The idea was that the AA results are potentially bad enough, but I’m open to arguments for making a GM move.
The rule of thumb to “keep repercussions in proportion to intended effect” is meant to apply to those AA rolls where proportion is mentioned (1-4 and 7-8 on the table). I’ll make a note to clarify the wording in those areas.
And no, the GM is not intended to make a move on a 6-. The idea was that the AA results are potentially bad enough, but I’m open to arguments for making a GM move.
IMO removing a GM’s ability to make a move potentially stalls the fiction (in addition to my concern above about loss of proportionality). I suppose my ideal would be to have a AA table that prompts the GM (and is scaleable in all/most instances) but the GM makes a move. I am unclear on why it is useful to have one of the 7-9 effects happen too (the GM can always work this in if desirable).
IMO removing a GM’s ability to make a move potentially stalls the fiction (in addition to my concern above about loss of proportionality). I suppose my ideal would be to have a AA table that prompts the GM (and is scaleable in all/most instances) but the GM makes a move. I am unclear on why it is useful to have one of the 7-9 effects happen too (the GM can always work this in if desirable).
7-9 could trigger an “weakened” AA roll with the current 7-9 options added to the table, and perhaps using a roll of 1d6+power used or something similar, with 6- an AA roll plus GM move.
7-9 could trigger an “weakened” AA roll with the current 7-9 options added to the table, and perhaps using a roll of 1d6+power used or something similar, with 6- an AA roll plus GM move.