Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7921570" data-attributes="member: 23935">What can I say?  I'm a creature of habit.  It wasn't meant to be a criticism of the encounter so much as it is one where I remember discussing the issue before.  I have no doubt the situation that developed did so because of pure motives.  To me it points out an area of weakness in DW where force and illusionism can be used by GMs that wish to use those techniques.Many uses of force become obvious in post-mortem.  I tend to agree an ill-skilled GM will be reasonably caught trying to mess with the play this way.  Much like an ill-skilled GM is caught using force in other systems.It's not just the continual use of soft moves in place of hard moves though, it is the disregarding of failures taking the gambit off the table and/or the continual attempt to reintroduce an element that previously failed.  These are all mechanisms the GM can bypass to introduce content he desires.Although I dearly want to run/play BitD, no group I'm associated with has been willing.  So any criticism of the system I may have is not reliable.  My general contention is the powers of scene framing and consequence assignment are capable of leading groups to exactly where the GM wishes them to go should the GM have covert intent.  This can be mitigated through establishing very strong rules wrt how failures will be treated and the principle that an element can only be introduced once.There is almost always a way to be true to failure.  If there isn't, should there even be a check?  The dog running off into the frozen waste followed by a pitiful yelping and the emergence of a new threat swallowing its remains would be one.Again, I don't think you specifically attempted to apply force to the encounter.  But if you were the sort of GM who would, it's a spot where the players may have been able to detect that force.  Especially in the use of soft responses to hard failure and the ability to rescue the dog despite the hard failure at establishing peaceful relations.I tend to be more... harsh? A failure removes further attempts to use that gambit and generally makes the specific opportunity pursued unreachable.  The fact the Ranger failed during the Parley would have removed further non-combat opportunity with the dog unless and until the situation was completely changed.</blockquote>

Verification