07-06-2018, 02:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2018, 02:31 AM by Eternity Larva.)
Since I've been busy writing moves in my spare time, I thought I'd drop in my two cents on this topic even as a newcomer to the Omniverse. There might be some points here that somewhat place blame on the community, so if you do feel offended, I apologize. I intend for the criticism to be more constructive than anything.
For the first question, I think that the Moves system we have now is actually okay. My hypothesis is that the way we see specifics has caused bad habits. Somewhere along the way, specifics have managed to convince almost every writer that exact details are a requirement because it eliminates vagueness that confuses rather than inspires creativity in writers, and eliminates wrong portrayals that weren't the intention of the writer. "Better safe than sorry". The problem is, it actually is rubbing off on the opinion of what moves should be approved and what shouldn't. This would explain the eventual lean towards details we see today. If so, one solution would be to convince ourselves that being specific is totally an extra thing, and you can still write a great move while being somewhat - yet not absolutely - vague with its use. Once we can all agree on this, I think the problem will fix itself.
The second question: I think the basics of a move is fairly similar to what we already have, minus the over-the-top details. Take offensive moves for example:
Since you're putting effort, you'll need how to show how much effort in the form of fatigue ("These shots are fairly light on stamina, Master Z can easily maintain it for several minutes"). You'll need a description of how the move's appearance or execution, whichever fits ("The wielder, with two hands, swings the sword to make a vortex of golden spiritual fire"). You'll also need to explain how your move will even hurt your enemy (Punch? Cut? Smash? Burn? Mental assault?). If it's a physical move, you might want a general idea of its reach (short for daggers/fist moves, long for giant chainsaws/mega-scythes) and its weight (Light swords can be swung pretty easily for quick swipes. Heavy swords take a lot more to use for big results).
Barring the fact that I probably missed something, Pretty much any other description/mechanic can be written as a choice, checked and balanced by the approval staff to keep things within reason.
In light of the above, I've been thinking about organizing move info better... Fluff, Function, Technicalities: FFT for short. At best, you should be able to write a move with just Function, following the criteria I listed above. However, the other two are (or at least, should be) optional things that can still enhance the presentation of a move. The Fluff area comes first, for stuff that generally doesn't affect its combat ability, like its history or just being a brief summary of the cool things it does (or used to do pre-OV). Technicalities should be last for details that are more important than mere fluff, but usually just supplemental info to the actual Function of the move.
Like for example, a super summarized version of the main weapon of my second character in FFT format:
So yeah. That's my opinion. I'll probably come back to refine this since it's 3 AM since I wrote this and I really need some sleep now. Hope I added something to the convo for y'all.
For the first question, I think that the Moves system we have now is actually okay. My hypothesis is that the way we see specifics has caused bad habits. Somewhere along the way, specifics have managed to convince almost every writer that exact details are a requirement because it eliminates vagueness that confuses rather than inspires creativity in writers, and eliminates wrong portrayals that weren't the intention of the writer. "Better safe than sorry". The problem is, it actually is rubbing off on the opinion of what moves should be approved and what shouldn't. This would explain the eventual lean towards details we see today. If so, one solution would be to convince ourselves that being specific is totally an extra thing, and you can still write a great move while being somewhat - yet not absolutely - vague with its use. Once we can all agree on this, I think the problem will fix itself.
The second question: I think the basics of a move is fairly similar to what we already have, minus the over-the-top details. Take offensive moves for example:
Since you're putting effort, you'll need how to show how much effort in the form of fatigue ("These shots are fairly light on stamina, Master Z can easily maintain it for several minutes"). You'll need a description of how the move's appearance or execution, whichever fits ("The wielder, with two hands, swings the sword to make a vortex of golden spiritual fire"). You'll also need to explain how your move will even hurt your enemy (Punch? Cut? Smash? Burn? Mental assault?). If it's a physical move, you might want a general idea of its reach (short for daggers/fist moves, long for giant chainsaws/mega-scythes) and its weight (Light swords can be swung pretty easily for quick swipes. Heavy swords take a lot more to use for big results).
Barring the fact that I probably missed something, Pretty much any other description/mechanic can be written as a choice, checked and balanced by the approval staff to keep things within reason.
In light of the above, I've been thinking about organizing move info better... Fluff, Function, Technicalities: FFT for short. At best, you should be able to write a move with just Function, following the criteria I listed above. However, the other two are (or at least, should be) optional things that can still enhance the presentation of a move. The Fluff area comes first, for stuff that generally doesn't affect its combat ability, like its history or just being a brief summary of the cool things it does (or used to do pre-OV). Technicalities should be last for details that are more important than mere fluff, but usually just supplemental info to the actual Function of the move.
Like for example, a super summarized version of the main weapon of my second character in FFT format:
Quote:Fluff: An ancient sword passed down between celestial families. Now, the relic has been claimed by the owning clan's eldest daughter. It has the ability to manipulate spiritual energy to a great degree. When striking down people, their bodies leak their soul in the form of a scarlet mist that the blade absorbs.
Function: The sword usually has no blade and only consists of the hilt, making for a convenient carry-around. However, when the wielder pours in their energy into the hilt, a glowing yellow blade forms. This blade is actually not very heavy as it is made of spiritual fire, meaning it can be swung around fairly easily, even with little effort. Most of its damage comes from the burning heat that emanates from the sword, depending on the wielder's ATK.
Technicalities: The gleaming brown hilt is 20 cm long, decorated with a red crystal orb for a pommel and dark gray tassels. The golden double-edged blade itself reaches 90 cm at its normal length, and due to being made out of fire, usually bends slightly when swung. In fact, the flexibility of the blade makes it impossible to break the blade for as long as the sword remains active. The hilt, however, can still be shattered with a good blow. For its looks, the sword is very light at only 500 grams or just above one pound, very low end for a Chinese jian which it is modeled after.
So yeah. That's my opinion. I'll probably come back to refine this since it's 3 AM since I wrote this and I really need some sleep now. Hope I added something to the convo for y'all.