Just wanted to dump this brainstorm out before I forget.
Imagine a PbtA-style roll. 2d6, modified by stats, 3 tiers of results. Different moves employ different stats.
Now imagine the tiers of results are defined like this:
High tier: Player gets to ask the GM questions they want answers to. This can be information the character seeks, or player hopes for how events will unfold. "Where are the exits?" might be a good question for one move, while "Do I knock him out?" might be a good question for another move. Answers are GM discretion, but err on the side of good for the players.
Low tier: GM resolves what's obviously at stake as they see fit. Outcomes are GM discretion, but err on the side of bad for the players. Additionally, the GM asks the player leading questions about ultimate negative effects of the outcome. E.g., "You get punched hard; does this more injure you or disorient you?" or "You get punched hard; how exactly does this disorient you?"
Middle tier: Player asks the GM some questions from the high tier, GM asks the player some questions rom the low tier, GM arbitration of what happens errs on the side of (what they see as) likelihood.
Okay, dump finished. More later...