Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8700148" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yeah, that's a bit loose, I agree. The main thing to note is that the full hit (10+) gives the GM a choice to take a PC out of the action or just level more harm.&nbsp; That's kinda important, because it means you can deploy this move even for smaller stakes and if a hit occurs you still have an out that doesn't disrupt the flow of play.&nbsp; On the other hand, if you feel it's justified by the situation you can absolutely take a PC out of the action.&nbsp; This means you can deploy it in a few ways.The way, I think, the game intends it is that you use the Suffer Harm as a default, but have the option to forgo it if it doesn't make sense in the moment.&nbsp; Like, if you're closing out a conflict on a 7-9 and deliver some harm, maybe it's not useful to Suffer Harm because most of the effects aren't going to be relevant anymore.&nbsp; Or, the harm is from something else like the environment where Suffer Harm doesn't feel like it makes sense.&nbsp; That's why I think the game tells you that you can forgo it if you feel it needed, but I think it's still considered to be a deviation from default when you do.&nbsp; The presumption is that you use the move.Alternatively, you could invert that default and usually not use the move, and only call for it when the situation is especially tense or challenge and it makes sense in the fiction.&nbsp; I think this makes for a less chaotic game, but at the risk of softballing.AW is meant to go hard.&nbsp; The Suffer Harm move is a part of that going hard.&nbsp; It's not just enough to take harm, but to enforce that combat is messy and chaotic and dangerous.&nbsp; It's not just marking hitpoints.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8700148, member: 16814"] Yeah, that's a bit loose, I agree. The main thing to note is that the full hit (10+) gives the GM a choice to take a PC out of the action or just level more harm. That's kinda important, because it means you can deploy this move even for smaller stakes and if a hit occurs you still have an out that doesn't disrupt the flow of play. On the other hand, if you feel it's justified by the situation you can absolutely take a PC out of the action. This means you can deploy it in a few ways. The way, I think, the game intends it is that you use the Suffer Harm as a default, but have the option to forgo it if it doesn't make sense in the moment. Like, if you're closing out a conflict on a 7-9 and deliver some harm, maybe it's not useful to Suffer Harm because most of the effects aren't going to be relevant anymore. Or, the harm is from something else like the environment where Suffer Harm doesn't feel like it makes sense. That's why I think the game tells you that you can forgo it if you feel it needed, but I think it's still considered to be a deviation from default when you do. The presumption is that you use the move. Alternatively, you could invert that default and usually not use the move, and only call for it when the situation is especially tense or challenge and it makes sense in the fiction. I think this makes for a less chaotic game, but at the risk of softballing. AW is meant to go hard. The Suffer Harm move is a part of that going hard. It's not just enough to take harm, but to enforce that combat is messy and chaotic and dangerous. It's not just marking hitpoints. [/QUOTE]

Verification