AnotherGuy
Hero
So, I'm always looking to inject new ideas into our game whether they are there for a particular session or longer is not the main concern - it exposes us to new ideas and it brings something exciting and challenging for the table to engage with. What helps is I'm fortunate to have easy-going players.
Upon discussion with @pemerton and others in the forum who play many indie-games, their games somewhat have Soft and Hard Moves.
Now in my current game, the PCs were facing a really difficult challenge (the DCs were relatively high) which made sense in the fiction, and I opted to introduce a resource mechanic called a Narrative Fail (no thought really put into the name), whereby they get to succeed on a die outcome to allow me to introduce a Hard Move against them.
Two players engaged with it: Mills earned 2 and Dench 1 (character names)
After the session, I sent them a text of how the Hard Moves were played out and to get the table's input.
Background: Mills was in the recent past in Sigil for a series of Duet sessions (we partly played 2e's Doors to the Unknown)
My Original Text (warning long) and their follow up responses
FIVIN: It's a useful mechanic for instant gratification. Something to consider is how you would play out those 2-3 narrative failures if the PC dies in that battle, and I'm guessing you would have an epilogue scene after Tiamat, so we could still rack up some failures during that fight.
ME: Good question. For such a scene (ending of an ACT) I guess we have 2 options.
1. (Bleep) with your Raise Dead/Reincarnation/Resurrection. Permanent Fail.
2. Use them against future characters (this feels wrong/undeserving)
FIVIN: Yeah, option 2 is (bleep). We could consider complications for the party because of that character? Still could feel a bit (bleep), but it means the PC better survive or their teammates will have to shovel their (bleep).
MACCATH THE CRIMSON: Personally I am against any player inference. Especially with character deaths, it just feels like save scamming just to mention one issue. I might be open to minor changes but even that brings in other concerns.
I always have the attitude that a DM is not out there to (bleep) you, well maybe a little , and should be allowed some narrative leeway to progress the story.
On a personally note I never think you want to kick my ass, yes I feel aggrieved occasionally but that's just the way of things.
What fun would there be if we just had a win button . . .
ME: Just thinking about this Hard Move, I'd always likely use it for perma-death. It's what your player most desires (to return), and therefore, any other Move I made besides perma-death, in that situation, would be a Soft Move IMO.
The Shard IS a primary concern for Mills hence the direction of the Hard Move.
Also, that's not to say the party cannot investigate as to why the Raise Dead/Reincarnation/Resurrection is not working.
MILLS: I can attest it was very disappointing for me as a player and my character. So I'll be super hesitant to use such a mechanic in the future, because the 'gain' was not commensurable with the loss, it was more like 1000pt loss vs 1pt gain.
ME: Thank you for that input. That's the point. It is meant to be on that level where you're desperate enough to sacrifice (anything)
MILLS: I probably would still have been willing to use one, had I known the outome. But never more... unless maybe another two party members dropped... Or similar extreme need.
ME: Fair. Now we have a better idea hence the discussion and the table's input.
The player of Dench did not comment. We will likely have a discussion about it next session, about whether
How do you feel about such a mechanic in your D&D?
We are playing 5e but I feel you could incorporate this into any edition hence I did not give it the 5e thread tag.
EDIT: I've since been informed that the above is actually a Soft Move not a Hard Move.
Upon discussion with @pemerton and others in the forum who play many indie-games, their games somewhat have Soft and Hard Moves.
Now in my current game, the PCs were facing a really difficult challenge (the DCs were relatively high) which made sense in the fiction, and I opted to introduce a resource mechanic called a Narrative Fail (no thought really put into the name), whereby they get to succeed on a die outcome to allow me to introduce a Hard Move against them.
Two players engaged with it: Mills earned 2 and Dench 1 (character names)
After the session, I sent them a text of how the Hard Moves were played out and to get the table's input.
Background: Mills was in the recent past in Sigil for a series of Duet sessions (we partly played 2e's Doors to the Unknown)
My Original Text (warning long) and their follow up responses
Hey guys the Narrative Failure is a new mechanic I was trying out.
So Sigil is known as The Cage. Easier to get in, difficult to leave. Using that lore Scrying would be somewhat difficult too I imagine.
Mills proved himself quite capable having found and survived a mysterious Two Doors (portals) out of a known Four Doors that appear every 500 years or so.
And he unnecessarily (part of his M.O.) killed an accomplished hired help. In the process he lost his backpack which included a valuable item.
By the time he arrived at the perpetrator's abode who was a Merchant Lord of Sigil, an Ogre Magi named Estevan, had established which item was the most valuable (by far) and had placed an Arcane Mark on it. The intention was to spy on Mills as he wanted Mills to find the remaining Two Doors for him. He knew Mills was working with others.
Mills negotiated to provide him info on the Two Doors he had already found in exchange for an hour with the item, but that alas he was now looking for a way off Sigil.
The Ogre Magi agreed to Mill's proposal.
An Invisible Stalker was ever present with Mills while he studied the item with the Arcane Mark being the contingency in case he ran off with it.
Mills bonded to the halfling-sized rod using a class feature before returning it. Just before he used a portal to exit Sigil, he summoned the item to him.
This created a problem as 5e Scrying doesn't allow one scry for the item off plane (3.e Scrying does) AND you likely cannot Scry successfully from Sigil (presumably).
I use spells for NPCs from various editions all the time for storyline purposes but this one was icky as it was specifically against the PC so it felt wrong.
So,
I used the 1st Narrative Failure to find Mills.
The 2nd Narrative Failure to summon the item superseding the bond/possession that Mills had over the item. (Instant Summons)
The idea of this is to mechanise HARD MOVES done by the DM against the players.
You take a Narrative Fail to succeed on a saving throw, skill check or attack etc allowing me to use a Hard Move against you.
To be clear, the loss of Lenta Moore was not a Narrative Failure, that was a result of in-game consequences. One can argue (successfully) that Mills not having a lead to where she was and finding a dead end may count as a Narrative Failure but that was before the I had introduced the mechanic and I was using DM fiat to "(Bleep) with you".
This method now mechanises the above. It's created a currency.
You (as player) get what you want in the present and I (as DM) get the right to use a Hard Move against you.
What do you guys think about this?
Obviously, there'd be a hard limitation on how many Narrative Failures one can have. I'm not about to let you succeed on everything while racking up Hard Moves.
So Sigil is known as The Cage. Easier to get in, difficult to leave. Using that lore Scrying would be somewhat difficult too I imagine.
Mills proved himself quite capable having found and survived a mysterious Two Doors (portals) out of a known Four Doors that appear every 500 years or so.
And he unnecessarily (part of his M.O.) killed an accomplished hired help. In the process he lost his backpack which included a valuable item.
By the time he arrived at the perpetrator's abode who was a Merchant Lord of Sigil, an Ogre Magi named Estevan, had established which item was the most valuable (by far) and had placed an Arcane Mark on it. The intention was to spy on Mills as he wanted Mills to find the remaining Two Doors for him. He knew Mills was working with others.
Mills negotiated to provide him info on the Two Doors he had already found in exchange for an hour with the item, but that alas he was now looking for a way off Sigil.
The Ogre Magi agreed to Mill's proposal.
An Invisible Stalker was ever present with Mills while he studied the item with the Arcane Mark being the contingency in case he ran off with it.
Mills bonded to the halfling-sized rod using a class feature before returning it. Just before he used a portal to exit Sigil, he summoned the item to him.
This created a problem as 5e Scrying doesn't allow one scry for the item off plane (3.e Scrying does) AND you likely cannot Scry successfully from Sigil (presumably).
I use spells for NPCs from various editions all the time for storyline purposes but this one was icky as it was specifically against the PC so it felt wrong.
So,
I used the 1st Narrative Failure to find Mills.
The 2nd Narrative Failure to summon the item superseding the bond/possession that Mills had over the item. (Instant Summons)
The idea of this is to mechanise HARD MOVES done by the DM against the players.
You take a Narrative Fail to succeed on a saving throw, skill check or attack etc allowing me to use a Hard Move against you.
To be clear, the loss of Lenta Moore was not a Narrative Failure, that was a result of in-game consequences. One can argue (successfully) that Mills not having a lead to where she was and finding a dead end may count as a Narrative Failure but that was before the I had introduced the mechanic and I was using DM fiat to "(Bleep) with you".
This method now mechanises the above. It's created a currency.
You (as player) get what you want in the present and I (as DM) get the right to use a Hard Move against you.
What do you guys think about this?
Obviously, there'd be a hard limitation on how many Narrative Failures one can have. I'm not about to let you succeed on everything while racking up Hard Moves.
FIVIN: It's a useful mechanic for instant gratification. Something to consider is how you would play out those 2-3 narrative failures if the PC dies in that battle, and I'm guessing you would have an epilogue scene after Tiamat, so we could still rack up some failures during that fight.
ME: Good question. For such a scene (ending of an ACT) I guess we have 2 options.
1. (Bleep) with your Raise Dead/Reincarnation/Resurrection. Permanent Fail.
2. Use them against future characters (this feels wrong/undeserving)
FIVIN: Yeah, option 2 is (bleep). We could consider complications for the party because of that character? Still could feel a bit (bleep), but it means the PC better survive or their teammates will have to shovel their (bleep).
MACCATH THE CRIMSON: Personally I am against any player inference. Especially with character deaths, it just feels like save scamming just to mention one issue. I might be open to minor changes but even that brings in other concerns.
I always have the attitude that a DM is not out there to (bleep) you, well maybe a little , and should be allowed some narrative leeway to progress the story.
On a personally note I never think you want to kick my ass, yes I feel aggrieved occasionally but that's just the way of things.
What fun would there be if we just had a win button . . .
ME: Just thinking about this Hard Move, I'd always likely use it for perma-death. It's what your player most desires (to return), and therefore, any other Move I made besides perma-death, in that situation, would be a Soft Move IMO.
The Shard IS a primary concern for Mills hence the direction of the Hard Move.
Also, that's not to say the party cannot investigate as to why the Raise Dead/Reincarnation/Resurrection is not working.
MILLS: I can attest it was very disappointing for me as a player and my character. So I'll be super hesitant to use such a mechanic in the future, because the 'gain' was not commensurable with the loss, it was more like 1000pt loss vs 1pt gain.
ME: Thank you for that input. That's the point. It is meant to be on that level where you're desperate enough to sacrifice (anything)
MILLS: I probably would still have been willing to use one, had I known the outome. But never more... unless maybe another two party members dropped... Or similar extreme need.
ME: Fair. Now we have a better idea hence the discussion and the table's input.
The player of Dench did not comment. We will likely have a discussion about it next session, about whether
- It was a once-off,
- It should be used for situations I/we deem appropriate,
- We create this currency going forward; and
- It's limitations if we are to use it again.
How do you feel about such a mechanic in your D&D?
We are playing 5e but I feel you could incorporate this into any edition hence I did not give it the 5e thread tag.
EDIT: I've since been informed that the above is actually a Soft Move not a Hard Move.
Last edited:
