John,

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I really liked your fire example, because I think it helped open my eyes a bit to the problem I was having.

I was really using "effect" in the sense used in the the previous quote that Noofy provided. Basically where a "soft" moves were defined as "Say what happens, but stop before the effect and ask 'What do you do?'"

Whereas a hard move is "Say what happens including the effect".

By this definition, a soft move doesn't necessarily lack an immediate threat. "You hear a bull-like bellow as a massive shape bursts from the shadows. The ogre's face, twisted in anger, is briefly illuminated by your torchlight. Then it brings a tree-sized club down at your head with a massive, two-handed swing. What do you do?" would qualify as a soft move.

We could argue over the semantics of whether the blinding/choking/confusion in your narration was an effect or not--but I think it's undeniably different in nature than giving a modifier to future actions or applying damage or any other mechanical effect. Even while "narrative effects" might constrain the player's actions--they are really just the set for an upcoming spike. The ball is in the air, but the player still has a chance to react before it gets slammed down their throat.

Well, the "trigger a primitive trap" definitely had me scratching my head.

Some of them seem to make more sense if I think of them as soft moves--particularly if the NPCs don't yet know the characters are there. For example, the goblin chief's summoning a powerful being and begging for aid--I had trouble seeing how that would work in the middle of action. Or, once the characters are spotted, I could lead with him commanding the goblins to attack. So I think I have a better feel for those.

But that raises another question. How is that different from the standard show signs of doom move? I guess they give more explicit examples of the general move.

I also often have trouble with the supernatural moves. Like the Fireflies light something or someone on fire. Again, how is this different from using up a resource (by catching it on fire) or than simply dealing damage (by setting the person on fire). On the other hand, shouldn't being on fire have lingering effects? How should I handle that?

Those are just a few samples.

Also, I've downloaded both the hack and DW Basic. Which one is the most current version? I thought the hack was more recent (since it has more characters), but it seems to be missing some stuff (like the wizards cantrips). I want to start running it, but I'm not sure which version I should use.

Thanks, Noofy. That helps a lot.

I also realized that I actually own Apocalypse World. I'd even started reading it, and was greatly enjoying it, but got distracted near the end of the character packages and never got back to it. So I'm reading through that as well. Things are becoming a lot more clear.

So, let me see if I get this right...

If there's a lull in the action (everyone's looking to me to push things forward), then I should do a soft move.

If the player rolls a 7-9, then (typically) the action's rules should dictate what I do.

If the player rolls a 6-, then I can do pretty much whatever I want as long as it flows naturally from the story and doesn't violate the principles.

Do GMs typically make moves after a character succeeds with a 10+ roll? Or do you move on to the next player at that point? Or does it depend on the situation? It seems to me that I'd often want to show the NPCs reaction to whatever the player just did. I guess that may or may not be a move, depending on the situation.

Basically, I think the "Being a fan of the characters" principle--when interpreted rather broadly--really helps on setting the limits. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with some of the examples--particularly when it comes to things like "dragging someone away", which I've seen mentioned a few times. I guess if it's a PC, I'd only use this as a soft move. The person is in the process of being dragged off--setting up a situation that everyone needs to respond to. Rather than making it a hard move, and having the character simply removed from play without any chance of responding. Of course, if it's an NPC being dragged off--well, then things are different. I don't have to be a fan of the NPCs.

I'm also still a little confused about how many of the actions in the Bloodstone Idol adventure are supposed to work. Especially since most of them don't have any rules or descriptions--just the move name. Without understanding the intent behind the move, the name often isn't enough. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if I was creating my own adventure and my own moves.

The principles are interesting. Often, when you look at more narrative games, you can tell a lot about the designers bad experiences by how they shape the rules. For example, the principles put a lot of explicit emphasis on things like not railroading the characters. There's a softer, implicit emphasis on not violating the character's integrity, providing the character with interesting choices, and making sure the choices have an impact on the game.

If I'd written them, I'd have put a much more explicit emphasis on the latter, and a much softer emphasis on the railroading/gm story issue. Which, in turn, says a lot about the problems I've had with games in the past.

I also like the description of soft vs hard that you provided. That really makes things clearer. Unfortunately, none of this information is really in the basic rules. Which is a shame. At least for me, it makes it hard to even think about running the game--at least until I did some additional research and became more comfortable with the ideas. I think I'd probably feel comfortable running it now--though how I ran the game and how you ran the game would probably be very different. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

For example, I think I'd often favor -1 forward modifiers (which only affects the next move, yes?) over actual damage to simulate many minor damaging effects--and leave actual damage for when the bad guys really carve a piece out of someone. At least from a theoretical standpoint, I like the way it has a mechanical affect on the action, but it's temporary. It simulates being rattled or stunned by the attack, but the character can still shake it off. Of course, I'd have to see how it actually feels in play....

And, I look forward to seeing the complete rules.

Hi,

I've just picked up the iOS version of the rules and read through them. So far I'm really impressed, and I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes. However, I am a bit confused about how the GM Moves should work.

I gather they are largely narrative. In that I just describe what happens. But what limits are there on the move. How much control can I take over the PCs. Are there any samples on how these should work--and how (or when) we should move from softer moves to the harder moves?

-Rich-