What is a move?

So I've been thinking a ton about moves, because I'm trying to write up the ultra basic Powered by the Apocalypse mechanics for my hack, and there's something I'm just not getting.

Take a look at Baker's bit on moves and the Conversation: "All these rules do is mediate the conversation. They kick in when someone says some particular things, and they impose constraints on what everyone should say after. Makes sense, right? ... The particular things that make these rules kick in are called moves." And then take a look at the Angel's move, Infirmary: "You get an infirmary, a workspace with life support, a drug lab and a crew of 2 (Shigusa & Mox, maybe)..." Or one of the Vampire's moves from Monsterhearts, Invited: "You cannot enter a home without being invited..." Neither of those things are things you say that impose constraints on the conversation - they're just constraints on the conversation. Both moves include things you say that impose constraints on the conversation, but there's more to them than that.

And then you look at something like the Fighter's 'Favored Weapon' from Dungeon World, and that doesn't include something you say at all! It's just a statement about the game which becomes true (ie. imposes a constraint on the conversation) when you have the move.

So the thing that really confuses me is that he could say "[The rules] kick in when someone says some particular things... The particular things that make these rules kick in are called moves", and then introduce elements of moves which don't "kick in when someone says some particular things." This all made perfect sense until I started thinking about it! I feel like I'm missing something incredibly obvious. The only explanation I've got is that the bit on moves being the things that "make the rules kick in" when you say them is a lie. Moves aren't things which make the rules kick in, they're rules which kick in when you have the move.

If moves are exclusively "things which make the rules kick in", then what Apocalypse World refers to as moves in the case of Angel Moves aren't moves - they're bundles of rules which contain moves. If they're not exclusively "things which make the rules kick in", you could say there's two different definitions of moves: The things which make the rules kick in, and the little bundles of rules presented as "Angel Moves". You could also say that taking a move is a trigger which makes everything the move says true. Like I said though, I have no idea what's going on any more.

If it helps, this all started when I tried dividing moves into fictional triggers and outcomes and asked myself what those little bits at the beginning of Infirmary and Invited were about.

I think the advanced fuckery chapter sort of addresses this. The Angel move Infirmary's trigger is from now on. Some of the moves aren't triggered every time something comes up, they are triggered then and there and change what you say about the character or situation from that point forward. Adding augury to your workspace, stat increases, etc all fall in that category. The trigger is from now on but it's implied instead of written.

Some moves have a trigger that is not from the fiction, but from the table itself when the session ends, for example.

Hope that helps.

I think the advanced fuckery chapter sort of addresses this. The Angel move Infirmary's trigger is from now on. Some of the moves aren't triggered every time something comes up, they are triggered then and there and change what you say about the character or situation from that point forward. Adding augury to your workspace, stat increases, etc all fall in that category. The trigger is from now on but it's implied instead of written.

Some moves have a trigger that is not from the fiction, but from the table itself when the session ends, for example.

Hope that helps.

Thanks! I read the section on moves' architecture in Advanced Fuckery and things make more sense now. I still don't get the double use of moves as meaning "things which make the rules kick in" as well as "mechanics following the when ___, then ___ structure". By that first definition, moves are just the "when ___", aren't they? My solution so far is to say the "when ___" is the trigger and the "when ___, then ___" structure is the move.

Moves generally have two parts - a trigger and an effect.  Hence, "when ____, then ____."  sully's point about the implied "from now on..." trigger for some moves (like stat increases) is spot on.

What's important is that two moves can have the same effect but should have different triggers, or two moves that have the same trigger should have different effects.  For instance:

low pain tolerance: when you make the Harm move, add +1 you your roll.

versus

unstoppable: when you make the Harm move, treat a 7-9 as a miss and a 10+ as a partial.

The "particular things that make the rules kick in" are the triggers, the rules that kick in are the effects.  A "move" needs both.

Think of the angel's infirmary move as "when you take this move, then from now on you get an infirmary etc etc" It still fits the format, the trigger is just not tied to a specific event in the fiction. Rather, a specific event at the table that has a permanent effect on the fiction, and constricts what you say about that character and his/her situation from there out.

I think all the moves follow that format, they just aren't always worded as such because it could get clunky. If you look at the moves, the structure is there. Remember, the moves are both prescriptive and descriptive. Descriptive: I've done something that triggers the move, so I'm doing it. Prescriptive: I'm doing the move, so what am I doing in the fiction that counts as the move?

sully: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. You can say stuff at the table , like "I pick the Angel" or "I pick Infirmary", or you can just pick up the sheet or fill in the the empty circle next to the move. "When you pick the Angel, you then choose name, look, stats, moves, gear, and Hx."

So when you look at it like that, you end up with big "when/then" chains. "When you take Infirmary, then this becomes true: (you get an infirmary, a workspace with life support, a drug lab and a crew of 2 (Shigusa & Mox, maybe). [When you] get patients into it, [then] you can work on them like a savvyhead on tech (cf ).)"

Munin: The moves are used in one instance as "the things that make the rules kick in", and then they're presented later as "the things that make the rules kick in, plus what happens when they do (ie. the rules themselves)". So first they're presented as the "when", then they're presented as the "when/then".

I think I'm starting to get it now - moves follow huge when/then chains which kick into gear when you start playing Apocalypse World. Moves snowball. The rules regarding what make the rules kick in kick in when you start playing!

Does that make sense?

I think you're over-thinking it, but maybe not - the AW rulebook is called the "Master of Ceremonies Playbook," after all.  :-)

When you dedicate your brain to game theory, roll+Nerd. On a 10+ pick 2, on a 7-9 pick 1.
• Your brain doesn't melt
• You catch some faint glimmer of logic amidst a sea of half truths
• You don't have to spend weeks on end in a dark room shirking all your obligations.

On a miss, you become a quivering pile of sorry flesh, but a shell of your former self.

I maxed out my Nerd but still blew the roll.

-Vincent

I maxed out my Nerd but still blew the roll.

That's what you get for trying to min/max a story-based game.  :-P

I think the advanced fuckery chapter sort of addresses this.

Right. For those finding this thread later, the Advanced Fuckery chapter explores “Moves' Architecture” on p.281.

There are many “when …” possibilities described explicitly:

• When the character acts
• When the character acts, and circumstances dictate
• When circumstances dictate, no action required
• When the character uses a thing
• From now on
• Right now and done

The Angel move Infirmary's trigger is […]

The Infirmary move is an example of “right now and done” on p.281.

Yeah, I think we game geeks have a tendency to want to believe our beloved games have consistent systems, even when we have to push a square peg in a round hole. AW is awesome, but not perfect or always logically consistent (sorry Vincent) :-P

Anytime you make a game with it's own unique engine, you're just going to have to break the mold here and there to make things work.

To me, they seem like a design compromise. The ideal philosophy is that Moves are suppose to be charged situations that the characters find themselves in. You roll because what happens next can greatly affect the narrative. However, you also want improvements that will introduce situations. Now you have a choice, keep things simple and call all of them "Moves" (even though they are different mechanics) or make the rules complicated to follow by introducing a more comprehensive nomenclature (these are "Moves" these are "Enhancements" these are "Move Alterations" these are Improvements", etc.).

Again, the game is not perfect, but you can't fault Vincent for being human (awesome though he is (please don't kick me from forum)).

For instance: I always though the optional Move "Things are tough" was a little off.

"Things are tough. Whenever a players’ character makes a move, the MC judges it normal, difficult, or crazy difficult. If it’s difficult, the player takes -1 to the roll. If it’s crazy difficult, the player takes -2 to the roll."

To me, it made more since to stick these mechanics in as optional tags: Stupid-easy (+3), Easy (+1), Difficult (-1), Crazy-Difficult (-3). At least that's how I do it in my AW Hack.

FUDGE mods:
+3 Superb
+2 Great
+1 Good
+0 Fair
–1 Mediocre
–2 Poor
–3 Terrible

For instance: I always though the optional Move "Things are tough" was a little off.

It is of note that Vincent says right in the AW rulebook that that "move" was included because playtest groups wanted it, but that it's not recommended because it doesn't add anything other than hassle.  Apocalypse World makes no claim to model degree of difficulty in any way other than through the fiction, so that particular move is a spectacularly bad example - it's not central to how the game functions.

Yeah, I think we game geeks have a tendency to want to believe our beloved games have consistent systems, even when we have to push a square peg in a round hole. AW is awesome, but not perfect or always logically consistent (sorry Vincent) :-P

Anytime you make a game with it's own unique engine, you're just going to have to break the mold here and there to make things work.

To me, they seem like a design compromise. The ideal philosophy is that Moves are suppose to be charged situations that the characters find themselves in. You roll because what happens next can greatly affect the narrative. However, you also want improvements that will introduce situations. Now you have a choice, keep things simple and call all of them "Moves" (even though they are different mechanics) or make the rules complicated to follow by introducing a more comprehensive nomenclature (these are "Moves" these are "Enhancements" these are "Move Alterations" these are Improvements", etc.).

Again, the game is not perfect, but you can't fault Vincent for being human (awesome though he is (please don't kick me from forum)).

Oh man no, I don't feel that way at all! Inconsistency's good, it gives you room to move. I don't think it's a flaw at all. Perfection is death! Perfection means you've stopped growing and changing. The fact that I can ask questions of the game and not have readymade answers is what makes it so great - it's alive!

But yeah, thinking about this has been really productive - I came up with that move chain thing and I understand the mechanics of the conversation way better than I did before, so I'm happy.