Calling the PbtA "moves" moves: A bad move?

[chihuahuazero]

@darren

do those moves actually replace a GM during solo or co-op?

Interestingly enough, the Ironsworn book seems to frame it a different way. Glancing through the section on fate moves, it almost always discusses solo/co-op first, then “guided play” (with a GM). The book dodges the question of which mode is the “default” mode. The book also states that while the GM can reference the fate moves (and if I GM’d this system, I would keep them in hand), that the GM “represents the whims of fate” and is “the oracle” in guided play.

So the short answer is: “replace” is a large word, but fate moves can play the same role as the GM. And in PbtA, the GM disclaims a lot of decision-making anyways, so it’s a blurred line.

@darren

What if a GM is using those moves as if from a GM “playbook?” Does this confuse the GM position and what does that mean for arbitration? Thinking of the original post, should Ironsworn instead have rules/a ruleset?

The book does say that the GM can use and reference the fate moves. However, I’m not sure what you mean by confusing the GM’s position. As with any PbtA game, Ironsworn has its principles for how the GM should arbitrate play.

@darren

Does this game even make sense with “moves” or is it just using the established vocabulary being PbtA?

Disclaimer: I seem to be one of those gamers who aren’t perplexed by the “moves” terminology. With that in mind, let’s refer to how Ironsworn defines moves:

Moves are self-contained systems to resolve a specific action, scene or question. There is a move for most common situations you encounter in Ironsworn. They have specific triggers, phrased as “When you [blank].” When your character does that thing, or you encounter that situation, refer to the move to see what happens.

I’m on board with this definition. Moves as a self-contained system that resolves something. They have triggers; they have procedures such as simple if-then rules, dice rolls, or human choices; and they have effects. This works well with the conversation because the conversation also runs on cause-and-effect logic.

So while Ironsworn is using “moves” in the PbtA sense, I do grasp how Ironsworn is using the thing that it calls “moves.”

(God, this got longer than I thought.)

[Airk]

@chihuahuazero

So while Ironsworn is using “moves” in the PbtA sense, I do grasp how Ironsworn is using the thing that it calls “moves.”

Did you leave out a word here? I’m having trouble following this sentence.

[Simon_Hibbs]

If anyone designs a soviet chic styled game, please, please call them Protocols.

[chihuahuazero]

Hmm, to reword that sentence: Ironsworn uses the term “move” the same way as other PbtA games use that word, and I understand this term.

I used the phrase “the thing that it calls ‘moves’” to because other games might the same word in different ways. Both PbtA and (for example) chess use the word “move,” but they use that word differently. It seems like this confuses a lot of people who go into PbtA, treat a PbtA move like a chess move, and then feel constrained.

Does that make more sense?

[Airk]

Yes, thank you! That clarifies things nicely.

[TomHart]

In general, I find a lot of PbtA games regurgitate the same material, and make it relatively confusing. For example, phrases like, “you take damage as established.”

What?

I had to read and play a few before I felt like I got it.

I’ll call out Masks for bucking this trend. For example, by clarifying that moves trigger other moves (eg. a failed Directly Engage a Threat roll can trigger Take a Powerful Blow – or the GM can just tell someone Take a Powerful Blow out of nowhere if it’s established in the fiction that they get surprised). Or that when you ask a character, “How can I make you do X?”, the answer can be, “You can’t.”

As for the original question, roll triggers may have been a better term. I tell people who haven’t played a PbtA game before, “Just narrate until I tell you to roll.”

[darren]

I have to push back on the “moves” term. What Ironsworn defines as a “move” sounds like a description of what a rule or a ruleset is. Gameplay rules in OSR aren’t called moves, but I think you could describe them as “self-contained systems to resolve a specific action, scene or question.” So, while it’s good that Ironsworn defines its terminology, is this actually helpful for greater PbtA vocabulary? Of course, Ironsworn isn’t responsible for that, but I think this is still a great example to explore in contrast to other PbtA games, especially the ones that assume knowledge (like, for example, “take harm as established”).

There’s something about the assumption that “conversation also runs on cause-and-effect logic…” I’m not sure what my position is on it, but I’m thinking about earlier discussions about players triggering moves and everything a GM says being a “move.” If a player doesn’t trigger a move, is that a conversational failure? Is the GM allowed to step out of the move-making, conversational responsibility?

Please don’t feel the need to directly answer these! I’m just wondering out loud

[dannythewall]

I’m a big fan of capitalization when it’s Important. I had to double-check, as I only own a couple PbtA systems, and, yeah, moves is lower case. I think simply capitalizing Moves would help distinguish it from simply moves, making it its Own Thing.

That said, I often use the word “trigger” to signal when a Move should happen, so it’s clear when the fiction pauses and the rolls begin. I encourage my players to use it too, so they can claim to trigger a particular Move.

I wanted to use a similar concept in my Battlestreets game, but as I was using a side-scroller video game for inspiration, it was easy to use the word “tap” for the process. Trigger, tap, tag… all would be more helpful IMO

Or to keep the idea of a narrative, something like Spotlight or Focus. But that’s a bit GM-facing, as the GM might say “OK, let’s Spotlight that. You are ‘Acting Under Pressure.’ Roll +Cool.”

[ShawnTomkin]

@darren

I have to push back on the “moves” term. What Ironsworn defines as a “move” sounds like a description of what a rule or a ruleset is. Gameplay rules in OSR aren’t called moves, but I think you could describe them as “self-contained systems to resolve a specific action, scene or question.” So, while it’s good that Ironsworn defines its terminology, is this actually helpful for greater PbtA vocabulary? Of course, Ironsworn isn’t responsible for that, but I think this is still a great example to explore in contrast to other PbtA games, especially the ones that assume knowledge (like, for example, “take harm as established”).

That is interesting, and not something I’ve given a ton of thought. Calling moves a “rule” might be accurate, but it muddies the water because there are “rules” that sit above moves. There’s a mechanic for doing a thing called burning momentum, for example, that isn’t presented as a move. Honestly it should be presented as a move based on what I do with everything else, but it’s just not, darn it.

For PbtA games that operate at a zoomed-out scale calling them something like a “scene” would be interesting. For Ironsworn though, it comes down to … I don’t know. “Situation”? “Action”? That is just leading me back to synonyms for move.

In the end, people seem to grok “move” just fine, even folk new to PbtA. So, it’s a legacy term that seems to work okay. And I like that it’s an explicit nod to the wellspring of PbtA.

Ironsworn otherwise has a bunch of its own vocabulary, for better or worse.

[Majcher]

@ShawnTomkin

Calling moves a “rule” might be accurate, but it muddies the water because there are “rules” that sit above moves.

I think this is maybe getting at the core of it, and it honestly hadn’t struck me like this before. “Moves” aren’t just rules in the game, they’re specifically things that characters in the fiction do, and deserve to be called out by a different name. For the most part—things like end of session moves and whatnot flout that definition, but I feel like it hits solidly enough to fit.

[Zat_Thomson]

I basically formated the MC interface like this in a Fate-PbtA amalgam I’ve been toying with: short list of triggers for soft “reactions”, followed by a short list of them, then the same for hard ones.