You got a reply to this from
@Old Fezziwig. I've also posted about this in many posts in this thread, including some in reply to you.
John Harper is assuming that the fiction that is established during play has a type of emotional and/or dramatic and/or thematic "heft". And that it has a "trajectory" or "momentum" related to that. Here are the examples that he gives:
When you make a regular MC move, all three:
1. It follows logically from the fiction.
2. It gives the player an opportunity to react.
3. It sets you up for a future harder move.
This means, say what happens but stop before the effect, then ask "What do you do?"
- He swings the chainsaw right at your head. What do you do?
- You sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?
- She stares at you coldly. 'Leave me alone,' she says. What do you do?
When you make a hard MC move, both:
1. It follows logically from the fiction.
2. It's irrevocable.
This means, say what happens, including the effect, then ask "What do you do?"
- The chainsaw bites into your face, spraying chunks of bloody flesh all over the room. 3-harm and make the harm move!
- Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder!
- 'Don't come back here again.' She slams the door in your face and you hear the locks click home
.
See how that works? The regular move sets up the hard move. The hard move follows through on the threat established by the regular move.
Focus particularly on the last example. It assumes that there is a
reason the player's character has come to speak to her. And that there is a
reason that she has to be cold to the PC. And also that
the player cares about how she responds to the PC. It is not assuming a CoC-esque scenario in which the NPC is nothing more than a possible source of clues, and the only "cost" to the player of her slamming the door is that now the clue has to be found some other way. It is assuming human relationships.
If you look at the middle example, you will see that it involves sneaking into somewhere, with the risk of being spotted. It's less intimate and more adventure-y than the last example. I don't think it's that hard to imagine a variant on that in which the risk is not being spotted by Plover, but startling a cook.
(The first example is interesting mostly because it illustrates the difference between how interpersonal violence is approached in AW and how it is approached in D&D. AW uses the interplay of GM-moves and player-moves; whereas D&D uses something much closer to a wargame style of resolution.)
