SURVEY QUESTION: MOVES!

[Sarah Kerrigan]

@Sarah: I'd argue the problem lies less along the lines of how the moves system is. But, rather, how it's perceived. A lot of comments in this thread, for example, have made claims about needing X, Y, and Z in moves, when only X is something we actually ask for. The checklist thing might look big to some, but most of the points are going to be irrelevant to any given move.

Some people presumably see moves as an interrogation or a hit and miss black box that they put stuff in and sometimes it gets approved and sometimes it doesn't. Rather than a rough specification or guideline to prevent later confusion. A lot of "complicated" moves can be written up by just describing what the character does in their canon in detail. A while back, Yu was having trouble with a move and asked me for help. I literally just wrote down a description of the gif he provided.

I'm sure the actual move rules can be oiled, and the process can be smoothed out and made easier, but I reckon a large problem is probably the presentation of the moves page itself. Since things have been added and added over the years every time a new question comes up making it look much more complicated than it actually is. Most of the time, we're just asking people to write down roughly what they had visualised in a way that doesn't leave it ambiguous. And if the answer for "how long does it take to charge your fireball spell" is "it depends" then they should probably be paying 300 more OM.

As for making it easier for new joiners, definitely. Like a quick and easy guide to moves or something, because a lot of the move rules are irrelevant except in very specific circumstances.

My issue on that subject, is that most of my personal checklist for what I add to moves to avoid a second or third trip through a line of questioning (which happens very rarely unless I'm just trying to get a sword or something approved) is specifically based on details I've been asked for in the past while I've sat in move approval.

That being said? I can't argue for if it's "my perception" Or "the Move system itself". From a logical perspective, when I'm sitting here lacking the tools and the checklist, it's a gaseous entity that, much like a badly designed move, is so vague there's a lot of things I simply can't fact-check without going through the move approval threads for a few dozen pages to pull things out.

What I can state, independent of solutions (none of which I've proposed), and regardless of perception vs. Reality (which, again, was never something I discussed), was the fact that the Move System, be it by 'perception' or by inherent flaws, is a road-block at the moment that a lot of people interested in playing this RPG hit, and then retreat from. That several veterans on this site now don't have fun writing new moves in the current system.

I can't speak for how much of this is my perception, like I said: I have experience with the current system. but I've written over 30 moves between my characters. I get stuff wrong a lot still. I have to go in and add extra things. In the end, whether it's my perception or the system itself:
I don't have fun.
I don't understand the rules well enough to consistently get stuff through on the first try even after being here three years or so, or even confidently explain the ins-and-outs of them to other people who need that clarification.
The rules as written, and as clarified by other people, have consistently confused, intimidated, and driven off several players who've looked at joining this site.

[Dane Regan]

That being said? I can't argue for if it's "my perception" Or "the Move system itself". From a logical perspective, when I'm sitting here lacking the tools and the checklist, it's a gaseous entity that, much like a badly designed move, is so vague there's a lot of things I simply can't fact-check without going through the move approval threads for a few dozen pages to pull things out.

I don't follow. There's a checklist in the rules that's readily available. It was somewhat improved within the last year to make it smoother (I forgot when exactly). You definitely should be able to get move things approved without going through the approval thread. Unless it's very complex and you're unsure how to formalise it. But the MCW is available for that.

I don't understand the rules well enough to consistently get stuff through on the first try even after being here three years or so, or even confidently explain the ins-and-outs of them to other people who need that clarification.

What parts don't you understand?

[Dane Regan]

I take back a couple of things I said about costs. While I don't think the cost system is as "hit and miss" as some people are hinting at, there does need to be some rewording in the rules.

For example, this part of the rules is definitely one contributing issue:
[spoiler]

Moves must always be delimited in the descriptions. Please avoid being too vague and open. The point is that we charge you for each different 'use' of a move, roughly speaking. So if you later reveal in your role-plays that your energy shield can also be used as a magic crowbar, we're going to consider that an exploit unless you mentioned it could do that in the description. 

While most of this somewhat true in part, the underlined section is largely incorrect and ignored in practice. If you've got a shield, why wouldn't you be able to use it to wedge open a door? No one's gonna penalise you for doing that unless you say the shield is meant to be incorporeal and only blocks attacks in approval, then turn around and try to use it to bash something later - that's where there'd be a problem. That said, if your character regularly uses a shield offensively, it might be worthwhile to note that on your roster if it's not obvious. (We don't make people pay 600 OM for being able to bash people with a normal shield as well as block with it. It's just a plank of wood or shield or metal. Unless it can grow spikes to stab people at will, it won't cost more. Similarly, we don't make you pay more OM just to be able to block with a sword - because that'd be dumb.)

If a move always does the same thing (like explode for damage, or exist in one shape, or push stuff away), it's always gonna cost 300 OM. It doesn't matter whether your gust of wind can push open closed doors or throw people around. That's how things currently tend to work, and I think there's somewhat of a misconception there. It might cost more OM if it can change to "explode over larger areas" or "change shapes" or "push lots of stuff less rather than one thing a lot". Throwing daggers tend to set the basis for cost somewhat, as those would cost 600 OM at times. 300 OM for melee, 300 OM for throwing (if you want to use a dagger for both).

So, while this is correct: "Moves must always be delimited in the descriptions. Please avoid being too vague and open." The cost is primarily representative for what the move does rather than how many 'uses' it has. If you've got a flail, I don't care if you can both spin it around and swing it at people. It's flail. Isn't there that mental exercise thing about finding 100 uses for a brick or other items and stuff? Pretty sure I'd never need to price a brick at like 30000 OM - even if we started charging for "fodder things". That said, it might still go above 300 OM since it would cost more to change the bricks "form" (like, smash it and use the shards as weapons), as well as more for throwing it.[/spoiler]

[Schwi Dola]

https://omniverse-rpg.com/showthread.php?tid=10534

This is I think a fixable problem with the moves system, even as its newly posted its just a copy and paste from the rules.

I'm not sure half of the moves in this list would pass current Move Approval. Due to lack of detail. A lot of them feel like they are missing one or two details.

[Yu Kanda]

Schwi got a point.

unless this is the new standard to which staff is now obligated to go by. Then everything is OK.

[Dane Regan]

I'm not sure half of the moves in this list would pass current Move Approval. Due to lack of detail.

You're right there. Most are somewhat fine, actually. But one or two need minor tweaks. Just because a move is short doesn't mean it doesn't have all the required details. Like, for example, this is pretty short compared to other recent moves, but also totally fine:
[spoiler]Frostfire (requires Ranged Proficiency, Debuff Proficiency) – 300 OM

Sub-Zero charges up for a half-second - which slows him to half speed - before firing a super-cold ball of energy at his opponent. It's about the size of a hand, ice-blue, and flies as fast as an arrow. It hurts, and can temporarily immobilize a hand or leg (for up to a second, depending upon the user's ATK/TEC and the defender's DEF/TEC. With equal values, it's only about a half-second) leaving an opponent open to a follow-up combination.[/spoiler]

[Yu Kanda]

now they are fine? no hard numbers? no fatigue cost? no damage indication? Where was this wisdom the last few months xD

"somewhat fine"....these are actual examples...how can you not recognize them as a standard for moves up for approval?

[Dane Regan]

now they are fine? no hard numbers? no fatigue cost? no damage indication? Where was this wisdom the last few months xD

"somewhat fine"....these are actual examples...how can you not recognize them as a standard for moves up for approval?

Fatigue cost and damage indication has never been needed in moves. Not since the last update almost a year ago, at least. But even before then, I don't think it was officially required. I will only ask for a fatigue cost if I think you need more drawbacks, and it'll be clear that's the reason why I'm asking for it.

Hard numbers also aren't needed, outside of dimensions (like sizes and ranges) or times. And even then, a rough estimate is fine. Like "about 10m range" "roughly 1m long". "As fast as an arrow" has also always been acceptable. If you wanna say "150mph" or "70m/s", that's your choice.

"Somewhat fine" is because many were approved far back and don't fit the required standards. As an example, Reverse Sign "Evil in the Mirror", doesn't provide any info for how the move is even used. Just "they can do this". Okay, do they do that instantly? Do they channel a little spell first?

Hence, mostly fine.

[X-23]

But they're still being used as examples..

[Morene Fellon]

So wait, are we changing anything??? Because all the clamor I assume has been about people going back and forward in the move creation process; all we need to do then is encourage the moderators and whatnot to go "eh whatever" more often when approving a move?

What are we actually changing so that these new members actually have an easier time getting in so that it's more "fun?"

[Dane Regan]

REMINDER, FOR MODS TOO: This is NOT a debate thread, but a discussion. If I see any veiled insults or actively rude posts from this point onward, I am deleting your entire post regardless of whatever good content is included elsewhere. Be kind and respectful.

Yu Kanda's last post was deleted.

[Alex]

At this point, I'm going to ask staff to just stop posting here.

I can't speak for Jade, but I think the point here was to see what members had to say about an aspect of the website, not to engage in a debate, which is what I think this thread has become.

So, all staff. Please stop, even if you disagree with something being stated here. I promise you that we'll reflect and process member input and have our own debates/discussion on what we think needs to be addressed/changed/shift/redone/etc. Staff have various platforms to make their voices heard, and you'll have that time after the members have had theirs. It doesn't make members feel valued when everything they say and all their ideas are met with a counter-point. Just let them share their thoughts and discuss among themselves.

[Weiss Schnee]

Alright, I'm mostly done with this thread already, so I'm mostly just going to leave a closing statement. I wasn't super into joining in on this when this turned from a "Survey question" to a discussion, simply because I don't like engaging in debate with this sort of thing. It takes a lot of time and energy I'd prefer to put into writing, and honestly it's just something that I know sucks the life out of me as a person, so I generally avoid it.

Moves remain not fun for me. Sitting here writing out a couple paragraphs for abilities for Kerrigan or Weiss - is not fun for me.
Moves remain very unclear to me. I still don't understand a lot of the things involved in the move creation.

I find it both contradictory and weird that something like projectile speed or diameter need to be given a very specific definition, but something like ATK is so vague that while one's stat gives a baseline, everything beyond the baseline is so incredibly undefined (Examples: How much charge-up do I need to hurt someone with stronger defences? does a beam that moves 50 meters per second with a charge speed of 1 second beat a move that moves 100 meters a second but has 2 seconds charge time. how much drawback until I can break steel with the move? How powerful is my 1 minute charge Omnidirectional blast if I'm at ATK 1? by 'normal moves' under the ATK description, what's the baseline standard for the level of damage it describes) that it basically comes purely down to individual perception, making half the move rigidly defined while the other half of the move is hardly defined at all, making the basic idea behind defining these moves a bit of a mess.

I'm weirded out that a lot of the moves have this vagueness with ATK and to an extent DEF but meanwhile moves are locked down from being affected by SPD or TEC more often or not. While it's true that getting physically faster shouldn't make your bullets faster, it doesn't really make much sense for one's personal strength or power increasing the strength of their flintlock pistol, so the ideas there seem a bit contradictory to the spirit of those stats.

I remain unhappy that friends I have don't want to come to this site after seeing the move system and judging it too complex and irritating.

Those are basically everything I can dredge up from the top of my head.

That's my survey answer.

[Strazio Rockwell]

Incoming stream of thought.

Personally I think the move system is fine. Could use some polish, but so could everything and that will come through iteration.

From what I’ve gathered is that people feel that their creative agency is being restricted because moves require more details than they have in the past. Additionally people feel like they end up fighting with staff when trying to get their moves approved.

I enjoy reading moves that have appropriate amounts of detail. I like to see that “okay this move can only go so far so if I’m at max height while flying I can avoid it” or “this move is over after 5 seconds of continuous fire so I know how long to hide behind cover.” Yes time and distance are fluid when writing and there are a million variables but without something concrete to draw from we’re basically playing a game schoolground wizards. I’ve played on sites without any rules beyond no godmodding and they were largely awful to write any kind of fights. Vague moves that had undefined limitations are just unfun to write against and open up more room for stupid arguments of “well this move is super fast so you can’t dodge it.” Part of the reason why I love the Omniverse is specifically because things are limited and defined.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that level of lawlessness. But I’m getting the vibe that people are on one side of the fence or the other, and I just don’t know why we can’t have a happy middle and why we have to get so damned emotional about this. As with most things I think a middle ground is where we’d all be happy, and honestly I think we’re there with the current system I just think there is misperceptions about what is required and what is recommended.

As far as move variability we can take the example of the M6 with a selector switch. Imagine your character can shoot fireballs. You can shoot one fireball relatively accurately and it will have a decent amount of punch. You can shoot three fireballs in quick succession but your accuracy is worse and the individual fireballs are weaker. Thirdly you can shoot a hail of fireballs, each of them weak and inaccurate but you can carpet an area with them. Obviously that shouldn’t go in as one 300 OM move so I don’t see why a rifle with a selector should either.

Additionally the idea that the actual specifics of the move don’t matter because it is up to the writer to create the narrative. Yes that is true, but the writer still has to live within the world set before them. Weiss recently won a fight against Okor, Anderson, and I. Her crowning moment in one of her posts was where she knew she could attack Okor because she had fought him before and had counted precisely how many bullets were in his gun. That level of detail was only possible because we defined Okor’s capabilities. If he had the choice to not have that detail in there, well Weiss just lost out on some sexy writing.

Ultimately I just don’t understand why people feel that their creative options are constricted because they are asked to define characteristics of their moves. What do we lose by defining how far a gun can shoot and how many bullets it has? Why are we up in arms about removing things that ultimately add clarity to a move? Yes half of it might not be directly written about, but it is all useful to have so you can stay grounded within the reality of the universe. I’ve never seen a single staffer refuse to work with reasonable submissions to the move approval. Fuck even Urururu’s moves were worked with and eventually molded into reality and her moves were batshit insane and complex. To me it feels like people have this feeling that staffers are against them. That the move approval system is player vs staffer and in reality I see it more as a cooperative exercise so you actually think about and define your move.

At the end of the day why can’t we have both?

[Handsome Jack]

The issues I'm currently perceiving are:

1) Move Creation is too complicated. The level of detail that is seemingly required puts people off from even attempting to make Moves that are complex. (Your experience may vary).

2) Move Approval takes too long (for more complex Moves). And the pricing seems arbitrary. Which ties back into the detail above and my point below.

3) (This might just be me and Thaal) Moves that have greater utility are priced similarly to Moves which are straightforward. Ie: a sword that lights people on fire is the same cost as a mundane sword, despite one having much more use.

If we can adjust the current system to address these issues, I think a lot of people will be fine with that. I dunno if that's feasible, or if we'd have to compromise, but if it works I'll be happy. If not... well, the site has grown and changed a lot from its initial incarnation in 2013.

We've had time to see what works and what doesn't. We've had large group fights that have adjusted how we want to trade these kinds of fights. We've moved from Fortnightly Bonuses to an automated system. We've improved on nearly every other aspect of the site. If we need to scrap our current Moves system and institute something that's more "User Friendly", we shouldn't be afraid to make these changes. The Omniverse is a living entity, and all things grow and change as they age.

[Reece]

I still say that Jeff's* heretofore unnamed Modular Moves™ system is the best idea that's been put forward so far.

*And Bandit's, since they were the one to originally suggest it.


I get that people might be reluctant to implement a massive overhaul to how things are done... but it would greatly simplify the move approval process and also allow for more creative freedom when writing... which seems to be what people would like.

[Shantotto]

honestly im less worried about the state of moves and more on the misrepresentation of stats.

[Ezrihel]

Incoming stream of thought.

Personally I think the move system is fine. Could use some polish, but so could everything and that will come through iteration.

From what I’ve gathered is that people feel that their creative agency is being restricted because moves require more details than they have in the past. Additionally people feel like they end up fighting with staff when trying to get their moves approved.

I enjoy reading moves that have appropriate amounts of detail. I like to see that “okay this move can only go so far so if I’m at max height while flying I can avoid it” or “this move is over after 5 seconds of continuous fire so I know how long to hide behind cover.” Yes time and distance are fluid when writing and there are a million variables but without something concrete to draw from we’re basically playing a game schoolground wizards. I’ve played on sites without any rules beyond no godmodding and they were largely awful to write any kind of fights. Vague moves that had undefined limitations are just unfun to write against and open up more room for stupid arguments of “well this move is super fast so you can’t dodge it.” Part of the reason why I love the Omniverse is specifically because things are limited and defined.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that level of lawlessness. But I’m getting the vibe that people are on one side of the fence or the other, and I just don’t know why we can’t have a happy middle and why we have to get so damned emotional about this. As with most things I think a middle ground is where we’d all be happy, and honestly I think we’re there with the current system I just think there is misperceptions about what is required and what is recommended.

As far as move variability we can take the example of the M6 with a selector switch. Imagine your character can shoot fireballs. You can shoot one fireball relatively accurately and it will have a decent amount of punch. You can shoot three fireballs in quick succession but your accuracy is worse and the individual fireballs are weaker. Thirdly you can shoot a hail of fireballs, each of them weak and inaccurate but you can carpet an area with them. Obviously that shouldn’t go in as one 300 OM move so I don’t see why a rifle with a selector should either.

Additionally the idea that the actual specifics of the move don’t matter because it is up to the writer to create the narrative. Yes that is true, but the writer still has to live within the world set before them. Weiss recently won a fight against Okor, Anderson, and I. Her crowning moment in one of her posts was where she knew she could attack Okor because she had fought him before and had counted precisely how many bullets were in his gun. That level of detail was only possible because we defined Okor’s capabilities. If he had the choice to not have that detail in there, well Weiss just lost out on some sexy writing.

Ultimately I just don’t understand why people feel that their creative options are constricted because they are asked to define characteristics of their moves. What do we lose by defining how far a gun can shoot and how many bullets it has? Why are we up in arms about removing things that ultimately add clarity to a move? Yes half of it might not be directly written about, but it is all useful to have so you can stay grounded within the reality of the universe. I’ve never seen a single staffer refuse to work with reasonable submissions to the move approval. Fuck even Urururu’s moves were worked with and eventually molded into reality and her moves were batshit insane and complex. To me it feels like people have this feeling that staffers are against them. That the move approval system is player vs staffer and in reality I see it more as a cooperative exercise so you actually think about and define your move.

At the end of the day why can’t we have both?

I second this. I'm a very numbery person. Numbers help me relate, visualize and understand a move. Telling me the reload or charge times or literally any other tiny detail is honestly intensely helpful for me, both as a past judge and as just a normal writer/reader. I understand it'll put some people off and vice-versa, and I think it's more a preference thing.

So the actual effective "strength" of a move is actually, in all practicality, how much NARRATIVE AGENCY it removes from the other writer. A move that prevents a player from doing something, or that imbues a clearly defined negative consequence (like, being tied up is a clear lack of narrative agency. Not being able to see or sense your opponents. Even being hit with a bullet or bazooka reduces narrative freedom, because you have to write as being injured or risk your work being garbage).

Pricing things off of:
What narrative opportunities they afford their owner
and
What narrative agency they remove from the opponent

would make a lot of sense. In this way, the "300 OM per variable" somewhat makes sense, and is a pretty easily measured metric, but obviously that's breaking down. Trying to figure out a method of figuring that out is gonna be where the trouble and the goal lies.

The simplest solution would be to create a list of Moves and limit people to only purchasing those (with the option to flavour to fit their character). Obviously, this limits creativity, but you could allow members to submit new Moves for review by staff to see if they should be added to the list, if they already fit within another Move, or if they're too unbalanced to be workable.

Using a Mutants and Masterminds style of "simple powers list" is actually something I considered bringing up. You can literally make ANY character in Mutants and Masterminds, if you're willing to get fiddly with the rules. It's not completely unreasonable to have a list of mix and match powers that you skin differently. I could probably go through and convert every move written in this game into Mutants and Masterminds power sets.

On the topic of overhauling... Why don't we just do a small test? A little experiment to help flesh out and tinker with how that new system would work could go a long way. You could bang out some of this systems 'rules' in a small group DM before posting a thread on it in either OVD or CC (along with it's own QQ thread if you want to make it really nice and tidy). People would use it as if they were trying to actually get their moves approved by this system, you (jeff/bandit)go through and 'moderate' like move approval staff, then you can have a legit staff member slide in and give their opinions on if it's up to snuff/works out. If people like it, then staff should make it an 'alternative' method of move creation and approval, at least for now.

[Bandit With No Name]

I really don't think that an overhaul would be the best, if I'm honest. I believ the core of the system is good.

I think 2 major factors of the system need ot be tightened up and polished:
1: What counts as a "variable"
2: What details are pertinent for other writers to know about a move.

These are my ideas as of thus far:
1: A variable is something that adds narrative functionality outside of the powers that you already have.

Just as a rough, unpolished stream of thought for 2:
What does it look like?
If it's a physical object, what are some of the important dimensions?
If it's something that doesn't appear in the real world, what's important for us to know about how it operates?
What happens if you are targeted by this move (outside of the expected)?
What are some of the downsides (if it's beyond what we expect)?
What is it especially good at doing (if it does anything beyond what we expect)?

[Handsome Jack]

I tossed out an example of that system earlier in the thread, Ezzy. Though it didnt include Mod Prices or much detail.