Author Topic: Misses and the "generalization" of moves  (Read 3154 times)

fnord3125

  • User
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Misses and the "generalization" of moves
« on: August 19, 2010, 06:50:18 PM »
Awhile back, in the Monsterhearts forum, Vincent said this:

The "on a miss" clauses jump out at me. I found when I was designing my basic moves that if I had to write "on a miss...," it meant that I hadn't fully generalized the move to myself. It meant that I was designing an instance of the move, not the underlying move I was shooting for.

I asked if he might be able to expand on that, since I found it interesting (and I've been writing "miss clauses" in my own hack) but I think that he probably missed that request.  If you're willing, Vincent, I'd love to hear more about this concept.

I'd also like to hear the thoughts about others on it, as well, of course.

Bret

  • User
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Misses and the "generalization" of moves
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2010, 07:19:52 PM »
Oh, I ran into this when making moves too. Basically, if you have to fill in "on a miss..." the move is just way to specific. A miss of that move should leave room for the MC to do whatever move they like. If the consequences of failing are such that you feel like you can dictate what occurs outside of the context of the fiction in which its occurring, you should probably look at broadening the move. The move needs room to breathe, and the player should not know what to expect if they fail a roll, you know?

I would love it if someone had an example move that they felt needed "on a miss..." instructions so we could talk about that.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 07:22:08 PM by Bret »
Tupacalypse World

Johnstone

  • User
  • Posts: 435
    • View Profile
Re: Misses and the "generalization" of moves
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2010, 07:13:21 AM »
Examples for consideration: Reputation, Deep Brain Scan, Fucking Thieves.

Hans Chung-Otterson

  • User
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: Misses and the "generalization" of moves
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2010, 07:47:47 AM »
I think the key here is that Vincent said "I found when I was designing my basic moves that if I had to write "on a miss...," it meant that I hadn't fully generalized the move to myself."

Basic moves for a hack definitely shouldn't have "miss" clauses, but I think custom moves that an MC makes for a game absolutely can have "miss" clauses, and it's not a weakness. Also class moves, like Johnstone shows. Because custom (and class, depending) moves are for a specific situation.

I would love it if someone had an example move that they felt needed "on a miss..." instructions so we could talk about that.

How bout this one, Bret?

When you shoot up with the drugs that Lala made, roll+cool.
     On a 10+, you take +1 forward when opening your brain.
     On a 7-9, you take +1 forward when opening your brain, but the next thing you do is Acting Under Fire.
     On a miss, you pass out and wake up who the fuck knows where, and aren't you missing something?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 07:49:30 AM by Hans Chung-Otterson »

Bret

  • User
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Misses and the "generalization" of moves
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2010, 10:44:57 AM »
I was actually talking about a move like that one last night. It's still general enough because the MC can make as hard a move as she or he likes. You wake up somewhere and what? You're in a cage and Criner is scowling in at you, or you wake up and you're looking down the barrel of a gun at Lemma and she looks terrified. etc.
Tupacalypse World