Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8309097" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Well, let's be honest: it's no less common an error of GM procedure than the Lawful Stupid "death to arsonists, murderers, and jaywalkers" Paladin error is (unless one is very specifically playing that archetype to watch it crash and burn, I suppose). Plenty of people have at least one horror story from a GM they know, or from a friend who suffered under a GM like that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It is. But the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people get it in their heads to pursue a load of bollocks rather than mutually-enjoyable play. To turn the example around in a different way than my previous one: Isn't this exactly what so many <em>GMs</em> fear from their players? The powergamer is the player trying to "win." If GM fears of powergamers corroding the experience are valid, it's hard to see why player fears of tyrant GMs wouldn't be.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'll go a step further: whether or not it is <em>possible</em>, I'd argue it's not <em>desirable</em> to run a game in a "completely impartial way." Because the whole point of running a game for folks is for everyone to have a good time. Being completely impartial means ignoring player concerns and continuing on with play even if one or more players are having a Bad Time.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This seems to imply a follow-up question: Would one measure of a good <em>system</em> be that it supports the good GM in doing so?</p><p></p><p></p><p>While I might grant that there's a <em>little</em> vagueness on that one, I think the line between the two remains reasonably clear: a soft move is something you can try to <em>prevent</em>, a hard move is something you can only <em>address after</em>. So, let's say we grant that the fiction has established that smoke on the horizon means a bandit raid is already on the move. Can the characters <em>prevent</em> it from actually doing any damage, if they're successful enough later? If yes, it's a soft move--a very strong soft move, I admit, one I would be reluctant to deploy unless it was warranted, but a soft move nonetheless. If no--if at least SOME damage WILL happen, no matter how superlative the party's mitigation efforts--then it's a hard move.</p><p></p><p>In fact, I would call this merely a more elaborate, nuanced version of the extremely simple "the monster swipes at you." If, for some reason, the PC targeted by the monster's attack definitely cannot <em>prevent</em> bad things, only being able to partially weaken them or address them later, then that's a hard move. It is, at that point, just equivalent to declaring that the PC has taken damage or a debility outright, and then giving them a chance to bounce back. If instead the PC <em>can</em> actually STOP the attack entirely, such that there is even a slim hope of getting away unscathed, then you have merely presented a threat and not actually dealt a blow.</p><p></p><p>All that said, I do at least grant that there can be some cases where the line between soft and hard move is fuzzy--though I would probably focus that more in the area of simple facts (rather than evidence of future events). Frex: "No, <em>I</em> am your father!" is a "weakly hard" move against Luke because it conclusively establishes a hard fact about the past, but this doesn't have any clear and direct <em>impact</em> other than being upsetting--Luke hasn't suffered a clear "loss" in anything but morale. By comparison, "there is another" Skywalker is a "severely soft" move, because it establishes something important, another hard fact, but only in the most minimal and restrained way possible. Luke has to go on and investigate more before he learns who the other is, and gets significant control over where things proceed from there. </p><p></p><p>Or, if you prefer a slightly pithier phrasing: Vader's revelation to Luke is Vader <em>taking</em> control, albeit in a way very difficult to define mechanically. Yoda's revelation to Luke is Yoda <em>giving</em> control to Luke in both a (DW-)mechanical and narrative way, by equipping him with knowledge that he can decide how to act on. </p><p></p><p>Luke's subsequent conversation with Obi-Wan is an almost perfect example of using Discern Realities to investigate deeper, with either "what here is useful or valuable to me?" or "what here is not what it appears to be?" giving him the intuition that Leia is his sister, and later on when Vader senses from Luke that he has a twin sister (but fails to realize <em>who</em> she is) is a perfect partial success on a Defy Danger roll. (I'm honestly kind of surprised how well this analogy is working...)</p><p></p><p></p><p>See above. I'm not sure this is even a good idea in the grand scheme, simply because our sentiments for our fellow players are exactly what enable us to make an enjoyable, compelling game--no matter what style we play in. Those sentiments need to not <em>blind</em> us to when we are being too soft (or to hard!), but I do not see any way that a successful, long-running campaign can happen when the DM is a completely sentiment-less adjudication machine. That's what a calculating device is for, not a living, creative mind.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8309097, member: 6790260"] Well, let's be honest: it's no less common an error of GM procedure than the Lawful Stupid "death to arsonists, murderers, and jaywalkers" Paladin error is (unless one is very specifically playing that archetype to watch it crash and burn, I suppose). Plenty of people have at least one horror story from a GM they know, or from a friend who suffered under a GM like that. It is. But the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people get it in their heads to pursue a load of bollocks rather than mutually-enjoyable play. To turn the example around in a different way than my previous one: Isn't this exactly what so many [I]GMs[/I] fear from their players? The powergamer is the player trying to "win." If GM fears of powergamers corroding the experience are valid, it's hard to see why player fears of tyrant GMs wouldn't be. I'll go a step further: whether or not it is [I]possible[/I], I'd argue it's not [I]desirable[/I] to run a game in a "completely impartial way." Because the whole point of running a game for folks is for everyone to have a good time. Being completely impartial means ignoring player concerns and continuing on with play even if one or more players are having a Bad Time. This seems to imply a follow-up question: Would one measure of a good [I]system[/I] be that it supports the good GM in doing so? While I might grant that there's a [I]little[/I] vagueness on that one, I think the line between the two remains reasonably clear: a soft move is something you can try to [I]prevent[/I], a hard move is something you can only [I]address after[/I]. So, let's say we grant that the fiction has established that smoke on the horizon means a bandit raid is already on the move. Can the characters [I]prevent[/I] it from actually doing any damage, if they're successful enough later? If yes, it's a soft move--a very strong soft move, I admit, one I would be reluctant to deploy unless it was warranted, but a soft move nonetheless. If no--if at least SOME damage WILL happen, no matter how superlative the party's mitigation efforts--then it's a hard move. In fact, I would call this merely a more elaborate, nuanced version of the extremely simple "the monster swipes at you." If, for some reason, the PC targeted by the monster's attack definitely cannot [I]prevent[/I] bad things, only being able to partially weaken them or address them later, then that's a hard move. It is, at that point, just equivalent to declaring that the PC has taken damage or a debility outright, and then giving them a chance to bounce back. If instead the PC [I]can[/I] actually STOP the attack entirely, such that there is even a slim hope of getting away unscathed, then you have merely presented a threat and not actually dealt a blow. All that said, I do at least grant that there can be some cases where the line between soft and hard move is fuzzy--though I would probably focus that more in the area of simple facts (rather than evidence of future events). Frex: "No, [I]I[/I] am your father!" is a "weakly hard" move against Luke because it conclusively establishes a hard fact about the past, but this doesn't have any clear and direct [I]impact[/I] other than being upsetting--Luke hasn't suffered a clear "loss" in anything but morale. By comparison, "there is another" Skywalker is a "severely soft" move, because it establishes something important, another hard fact, but only in the most minimal and restrained way possible. Luke has to go on and investigate more before he learns who the other is, and gets significant control over where things proceed from there. Or, if you prefer a slightly pithier phrasing: Vader's revelation to Luke is Vader [I]taking[/I] control, albeit in a way very difficult to define mechanically. Yoda's revelation to Luke is Yoda [I]giving[/I] control to Luke in both a (DW-)mechanical and narrative way, by equipping him with knowledge that he can decide how to act on. Luke's subsequent conversation with Obi-Wan is an almost perfect example of using Discern Realities to investigate deeper, with either "what here is useful or valuable to me?" or "what here is not what it appears to be?" giving him the intuition that Leia is his sister, and later on when Vader senses from Luke that he has a twin sister (but fails to realize [I]who[/I] she is) is a perfect partial success on a Defy Danger roll. (I'm honestly kind of surprised how well this analogy is working...) See above. I'm not sure this is even a good idea in the grand scheme, simply because our sentiments for our fellow players are exactly what enable us to make an enjoyable, compelling game--no matter what style we play in. Those sentiments need to not [I]blind[/I] us to when we are being too soft (or to hard!), but I do not see any way that a successful, long-running campaign can happen when the DM is a completely sentiment-less adjudication machine. That's what a calculating device is for, not a living, creative mind. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
Top