Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. I think it was pretty obvious from @hawkeyefan's post, though, that he wasn't talking about disadvantages in HERO or GURPS.

On the other hand, the "elves land between these behavior sets and if you don't fit those, you can't be one" is an extension of that, just applied to choosing a character type.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's a syntax issue with your post that means I'm having trouble working out what you're asking.

I phrased that clumsily. If I'm remembering my train-of-thought properly, what I was asking was whether I'd understood correctly that that sort of direct GM insertion without player-triggering was okay with a soft move but not a hard move. Does my response make more sense there? Because, in the context of comparing PbtA to other "light" rules sets, especially those with a lot of RNR, the latter would be considered okay in those, at least under some circumstances.

I can restate the relevant principles, but that may not answer your question, in which case by all means re-ask it.

In AW (and DW, which follows AW very closely in the following respects), the general rule for when the GM makes a move is that the table looks to the GM to see what happens next. Because there is a principle that players decide what their PCs do and think, and that the GM decides what other people do, and what the "external world" is like, the players are apt to look to the GM after describing what it is that their PCs do.

When the GM makes a move, that should be a soft move - ie something which generate "rising action" (announce a thread, provide an opportunity, etc) - unless the players have provided a golden opportunity to bring home an established point of tension/challenge/threat (this is the "golden opportunity"), in which case the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like.

The GM's role in relation to players' rolls for player-side moves can really be seen as falling within the above principles: when a player succeeds, and looks to the GM, the GM makes a move in accordance with the rules for player-side move in question; if the player fails (6 or down) then that is a golden opportunity for the GM to bring things home with as hard and direct a move as they like.

It's not impossible, but should be atypical, for a player to succeed on a player-side move and the GM to make a hard move. For instance, suppose all the fiction up to now, in an AW game, has established that some character has no desires - perhaps they have achieved some sort of almost-mystical union with the psychic maelstrom - and then a player succeeds vs them on Read a Person and asks How could I get them to love me?, the GM can answer with a hard move: There's no way you can do that.

This would be an instance of the GM following the principle of disclaiming decision-making by always saying what their prep demands.

Perhaps its a perceptual issue, but the latter seems to me that its more the GM saying that, in the context of the fictional positioning, that the player's Move is simply invalid, since there's no possible valid answer to the question. But perhaps that's a terminological disagreement more than a practical one, forced by the constraints of how Moves interact in PbtA.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see how you could call it anything else. Its just inserting a mechanic for whether you can force that behavior or not; after all, in the second case its the GM deciding the character may not resist temptation no matter what the player wants.

No one says that the to-hit rules in D&D involve a GM getting to tell a player whether or not they can defeat a foe in combat.

Or that the rules for walls, doors and corridors in classic D&D involve a GM getting to tell a player where they can move their PC.

The rules of the game requiring a roll under certain conditions, or placing a hard bar on things under certain conditions, is not the same thing as the GM having a power or discretion in respect of player action declarations.

On the other hand, the "elves land between these behavior sets and if you don't fit those, you can't be one" is an extension of that, just applied to choosing a character type.

I don't really see it. GURPS and HERO have personality disadvantages as a component of PC build. These are chosen by the player, as part of how they choose to give effect to their PC idea, and how they want to mechanically optimise their build.

That isn't very much like the GM telling the player that they can't choose to play an Elf if they don't agree to follow the GM's idea of how the character should be played.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps its a perceptual issue, but the latter seems to me that its more the GM saying that, in the context of the fictional positioning, that the player's Move is simply invalid, since there's no possible valid answer to the question. But perhaps that's a terminological disagreement more than a practical one, forced by the constraints of how Moves interact in PbtA.

Here is the rule (AW pp 201-2):

When you read a person in a charged interaction, roll+sharp. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. While you’re interacting with them, spend your hold to ask their player questions, 1 for 1:

• is your character telling the truth?
• what’s your character really feeling?
• what does your character intend to do?
• what does your character wish I’d do?
• how could I get your character to __?​

. . .

“Dude, sorry, no way” is a legit answer to “how could I get your character to __?”

And again: unhappy revelations, every chance you get.

Examples:

. . .

Bran promises to reboot Jeanette’s brain off Tum Tums’, but it’s definitely worth knowing what Tum Tum intends, so he watches them carefully while they’re talking. He asks what they’re feeling, and it’s a mix of malice, impatience and hope. He’s like, “malice?” so he asks what they intend. “It becomes increasingly clear, the way they shoot these subtle looks back and forth between them or something, but you’re pretty sure they intend to kill you afterward.” They keep talking and he asks “how could I get them to let me go?” Good luck with that, buddy.​

There's nothing invalid about reading a person who is mystically united with the psychic maelstrom. But if they have no desires, and are incapable of having them, then there's no way that they can be made to love a person. Just like there's no way for Bran to get Tum Tum to let him go.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No one says that the to-hit rules in D&D involve a GM getting to tell a player whether or not they can defeat a foe in combat.

If you're just now finding out people don't feel the same about physical as psychological actions, I don't know what to tell you.

Or that the rules for walls, doors and corridors in classic D&D involve a GM getting to tell a player where they can move their PC.

The rules of the game requiring a roll under certain conditions, or placing a hard bar on things under certain conditions, is not the same thing as the GM having a power or discretion in respect of player action declarations.

Of course it is, at least in most cases; when those psychological rules are evoked, who decides they need to be? In most cases, the GM.

I don't really see it. GURPS and HERO have personality disadvantages as a component of PC build. These are chosen by the player, as part of how they choose to give effect to their PC idea, and how they want to mechanically optimise their build.

That isn't very much like the GM telling the player that they can't choose to play an Elf if they don't agree to follow the GM's idea of how the character should be played.

I'd bet you I could find a dozen people on this board who don't see them as radically different. Care to bet? Even some who see them different just consider them a matter of degree.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Here is the rule (AW pp 201-2):

When you read a person in a charged interaction, roll+sharp. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. While you’re interacting with them, spend your hold to ask their player questions, 1 for 1:​

​

• is your character telling the truth?​

• what’s your character really feeling?​

• what does your character intend to do?​

• what does your character wish I’d do?​

• how could I get your character to __?​

​

. . .​

​

“Dude, sorry, no way” is a legit answer to “how could I get your character to __?”​

​

At which point it doesn't seem any different to a player action evoking a Hard move in any number of other cases. What's the distinction you're seeing?

Basically, this doesn't seem analogous to "The monster attacks you from ambush and does damage" which, far as I can tell, would be considered a valid action in a number of lightweight RNR games. Depending on the setup, the players might not like it and/or view it as poor form, but its not forbidden, and does not automatically provide any sort of roll to avoid.

So I'm not sure I'm getting your point here.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't see how you could call it anything else. Its just inserting a mechanic for whether you can force that behavior or not; after all, in the second case its the GM deciding the character may not resist temptation no matter what the player wants.

That's a separate axis from judging what the character should be doing.

It's one of those things where I have to warn players when I run Pendragon: there are cases where to act or to not act, a roll is required. Hell, it's how I run most games; there are times you won't get to follow through on your intent. I don't care if it's in character or not, but whether you have the stats to be able to.

But it also is why I always tell players "You choose what you attempt. The dice and I decide if you succeed, and how well." Excepting, of course, in the few storygames I tend to enjoy...
In fact, there are a few storygames I particularly enjoy: Mouse Guard, Blood & Honor, and Brute Squad. Mouse Guard is well discussed recently.
Brute Squad is fortune almost first... After the GM narrates the obstacle, the party determines who tries first. They then declare which brutistic they use, and then roll it. Only after rolling do they narrate their outcome... but if the rest disagree, or the GM feels it's egregiously not correlated to the stated brutistic, it gets renarrated.
Blood & Honor, the person who decides the base failure/success is the high roller, not the roll. Then others who rolled get to tweak the outcome, and anyone whose character participated is subject to being modified by the risk and its resolution.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's a separate axis from judging what the character should be doing.

Again, other than having some mechanics that intervene, I don't see it. I'm not sure how the examples you gave changed that either, though they move the decision from a GM to other players (as is not atypical for storygames, but they do that everywhere).

 

[Faolyn]

At which point it doesn't seem any different to a player action evoking a Hard move in any number of other cases. What's the distinction you're seeing?

Basically, this doesn't seem analogous to "The monster attacks you from ambush and does damage" which, far as I can tell, would be considered a valid action in a number of lightweight RNR games. Depending on the setup, the players might not like it and/or view it as poor form, but its not forbidden, and does not automatically provide any sort of roll to avoid.

So I'm not sure I'm getting your point here.

Players don't have hard moves. Not in the way that PbtA games define hard moves.

 

[pemerton]

Players don't have hard moves. Not in the way that PbtA games define hard moves.

When @Thomas Shey uses the phrase "a player action evoking a Hard move", he is referring to the GM making a hard move in response to a player's declaration of an action for their PC.