Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 9678187" data-attributes="member: 16586">Players don't make hard or soft moves. They just declare actions which invoke basic moves or playbook moves which are just mechanics that trigger on some fictional event. GM Moves are just GM responses to player actions (Monsterhearts actually calls them Reactions). Soft moves are responses that telegraph things that might happen if players do not make an effort to stop them. Hard moves are irrevocable changes to the setting that change the characters' status quo.Look, I do not dispute that Apocalypse World and an innumerable number of games that change the GM role in some way, are asking you to do things you personally do not want to do as a GM and restricting the things you like to do. But that does not make them restrictive or mechanically bound. Just not a good fit for your playstyle.What you are not acknowledging is that most roleplaying games from OD&D and onward have asked people who want to frame scenes and make moves to instead build worlds, describe environments and evaluate actions. You are not acknowledging that for some styles of play 5e is just as restrictive as you find Monsterhearts.Basically, you are making a general statement that only applies if we see the restrictions and structure of conventional play as the norm. You are doing so in the way that implies things about the experiences other people have, denying our creativity, denying the rich tapestry of our play and how free we feel playing it.I would never say that because it's a poor vessel for Narrativist play that 5e is restrictive. Because it's not meant to enable and support that play. Can I fight against it in the same way some people fight against the playstyles Dungeon World and Masks were designed to support? Sure, but it's not likely to be a positive experience.Like, I do not understand why we cannot just respect other games for what they offer, even if they are not for us.</blockquote>

Verification