[From Twitter, somewhat edited]

So you have a whole bunch of stuff in a game's design, right? You've got characters, fictional setting, dice, rules, abilities on character sheets, player roles like "player" and "GM"...

...And you have the moment of play, four friends talking together, live, right now.

It's tempting to say that the design-stuff "constrains" the moment of play, that the moment of play "enacts" the design-stuff. But I think that's backward. In the moment of play, you reach into the design-stuff and choose what of it you'll bring to bear. Better to say that the moment of play draws on the design-stuff, that the design-stuff is there as a resource for the playgroup to use.

Especially as a designer, I'm always tempted to take the view that game design, like, causes gameplay, but I don't think it's so. The live interaction of the players, that's what's real. Designing a game means winning the playgroup over to doing things your design's way, again and again, moment to each individual moment.

Now, PbtA games are pretty good at this. Moves are evocative, high-impact, high-color little bundles of game design. They're easy to read, easy to remember, and they're easy for a designer to lay up for those moments when the playgroup is likely to be uncertain in play. Consequently, at that moment of uncertainty, it's easy for the playgroup to reach out for a move and bring one into the game.

When someone attacks someone, for example, a playgroup is likely to want some rules to draw on, and moves make it easy to place some rules there for them to reach for.

(Relatively easy!)

#2 is design-stuff that gives a particular player a conversational benefit when the playgroup remembers it and brings it into play. PbtA games are pretty good at this too.Take for example, from Apocalypse World, the Maestro D's move just give me a motive. Whenever you want, you name a character who could conceivably eat something that you've handled, and maybe you've poisoned them! Ha!

This move isn't designed for a moment of natural uncertainty or awkwardness, it's designed for the player to remember it and bring it into the conversation opportunistically, precisely for the benefit it offers.

Here's a fun nuance of this idea. A rule like this can offer you a benefit as a player, and/or offer your character a benefit as a fictional person.

In a game where your goal as a player isn't to see your fictional character to victory, these can be completely different things! And this, I think, is one of the hidden keys to designing good moves in PbtA games: on a miss, you the player still get a conversational benefit, even if your character suffers.

Conventional wisdom says, "a miss is never 'nothing happens,'" and I think that's not the whole story, it's just the starting point. From there, additionally, even on a miss, you as a participant in the game have asserted yourself positively upon the live conversation.

You've said something interesting, and the conversation continues in full respect of it.

A good move validates your idea and takes it seriously, affirms you as an active and positive contributor to the conversation, encourages the other players to build on your idea, even when it has to give grief and hassle to your character. In other words, it makes sure that punishing your character IS NOT the same thing as shutting you out of play.

And what this means, of course, is that you as a participant in the live, urgent, unstructured conversation of play, you are willing and eager to reach out opportunistically for design-stuff to bring into action. You're willing and eager to roll those dice, secure in the knowledge that it'll matter, and it'll be good, and you won't regret it even if your character does.

So that's what I've got. You reach for moves (a) when the conversation hits a moment of natural awkwardness and you want a little bit of structure to get you through it, and (b) when you remember a move that will give you some leverage on the conversation that you want.

What do you think?

-Vincent

your point (a) here is honestly why i'm very close to trying to port in "when you [____]" -style moves into my otherwise forged-in-the-dark-meets-facade game, replacing FitD style actions - especially for players who may not be super familiar with the tropes and actions of wrestling (which includes me!), trying to figure out when to reach for the dice is really tough. Do I roll to try to hit you every time? do i roll just at the key moments? does failing a roll mean i fail to do it, or that i do it and it looks bad? 

right now the way i have it written as "When you use Glory, you are showing the audience why they should want you to win", etc - reading this has actually convinced me that "when you show the audience why they should want you to win, roll Glory" might work a lot better for giving players a repertoire of moves to make rather than just actions to roll, and would let me tighten it to clarify when rolls should happen and why. you know, just to add one more thing on this frankenstein game lmao

100% agreed!

For the past couple of months I have been preoccupied with thinking about the smooth flow of play. The moment that everyone who plays-to-find-out experiences, when after a while the game just catches and all of a sudden, Woah! we're going somewhere! We have momentum, and events are flowing from our lips with direction and purpose. I think that what you've outlined here is a crucial element to understanding exactly what's going on when that happens.

You don't get that smooth flow of play and purposeful direction unless the game addresses itself to the smooth and purposeful flow of conversation. But since we're making this up as we go along, and we can guess but never know for certain what the next move could be, there's always going to be gaps and uncertainties in the conversation. And those moves which give you a positive and active role in shaping the conversation can only really come into play if you already feel more or less certain about the conversation and the grounds on which you invoke them.

This is interesting. I hadn't really thought of player moves as ways for them to influence the conversation before. This and the responses have given me a lot to think about with the direction of one of my games, and thank you to everyone for posting.