SURVEY QUESTION: MOVES!

[Dane Regan]

> Just because they are not the majority, does not mean that it is not an issue that should be addressed if it is something that is relevant- even just in the form of a single sentence added to the first post of move approval or whatever. Much like how most people are going to pick a character that they're really committed to and want to take many places, but that doesn't mean we don't have a little warning about not just following a hype train for those that won't.

> Even if the rules themselves have not changed, that does not mean that the culture around pushing the envelope on them has not. I'm sure there's no single, solitary cause that can be pinpointed for this- but moves have changed recently. You've said as much yourself about "unbalanced older moves" and even I agree there. There have been good things added through the addition of specifics and some harsher judging, honestly a lot of good things. But at the same time there has certainly also been a more sneaking trend of people who have been getting extremely "gamey" with their moves- a sin that I myself was guilty of when I joined, but I quickly learned was only restrictive of my writing.

> To some of us, of course it's a joke. But from the point of view of say, a new person looking in from the outside, will they necessarily pick up on that?

> Maybe. I'm all game for adding a comment to the top of the approval thread about that sorta stuff, urging people to try and make something for their character, or something that their character can actually do. Rather than a percieved game "advantage". But I'm not going to deny a move just because it's 'gamey' or minmaxing, as long as it's balanced. Unless it imposes unfair writing limitations or something.

> When I said "unbalanced older moves" I was referring to some pretty old stuff. Like 2015 or something. I don't really think there is a growing gamey trend though. I mean, sure Shantotto can feel a bit like that with all the comboing and synergy stuff they're trying to do. But... that stuff is also really cool. And I'd assume those are spells their character can do in canon or something. We usually always have some people like that. There's nothing more I can see to do besides advise against it.

> True.

[Sans]

QUESTION #2: What do you consider to be absolutely necessary information when writing moves?

REMINDER: Remain respectful of what our admins both past and present have worked to create, please. Don't hurt each other. Thank you.

I actually decided, given the topic, to take a look at the move rules and some of the move examples to see how, when one applies them to the writing format, how easily one can slot it into a fight.

As an example, I took the Red Revolver move as written and analyzed it a bit.

Red Revolver (requires Ranged Proficiency) – 300 OM

A rust-red revolver that holds six bullets with a rate of fire of about one bullet per second. It is reloaded one bullet at a time, taking about half a second per bullet. It is powerful but difficult to aim at long distances.

Let's go point by point here.

"A rust-red revolver that holds six bullets..."

This is, in my opinion, needed information. As Dane and others have mentioned, some people like to use ammo as plot points and points of creativity in stories. I know I've used ammo and its shortages in some of my stories as well. Alongside the physical description of the gun, I believe ammo amounts are vital to stories, or at least to projectile weapons, as they provide additional elements of creativity in their amount number.

"...with a rate of fire of about one bullet per second. It is reloaded one bullet at a time, taking about half a second per bullet."

This is less-needed. In fact, I'm willing to say anything specific with time (one second, two seconds, three seconds, etc.) is more or less arbitrary. No one that I've seen that has written fights really uses these, and that's mostly because it's wasted word space. Hell, even in fights with larger word counts I don't see it, and that's mostly because it's needless detail. As I have said, time is almost entirely controlled by the author, so "one bullet per second" can mean anything. It'd be much easier to state it as something more general, like "It fires fast. It reloads one bullet at a time at a quick pace."

"It is powerful but difficult to aim at long ranges."

This is another example of needed information. Since it is a weapon, it details weapon damage (powerful) and a drawback (less accurate at long ranges.) No need for anything like "Fires half-inch bullets that go the speed of normal bullets. The gun is good at 13 meters but bad at 55 meters, etc." That part is an exaggeration, but the general principle is there.

In short, the usage of numbers to quantify these types of things inherently specifies things that might not need specification. That's why moves are overly complex; people THINK they need to be in order to get them approved, resulting in moves so cluttered and so completely outside the realm of what they want that it becomes a hassle for both Moderators AND Writers. This is why, in my opinion, numbers should only be used for things that absolutely, positively, need quantification.

As an example of what I think is a bit more proper, lemme rewrite the Red Revolver with all that I've added.

Red Revolver (requires Ranged Proficiency) – 300 OM

A rust-red revolver that contains six bullets. It has a fast rate of fire. It is reloaded one bullet at a time. Each bullet is reloaded quickly. It is powerful but difficult to aim at long distances.

More generalized terms like "short, long, fast, slow, etc." more easily serve the circumstances of writing and writing RP, while also allowing the specifications of numbers for the actual RP process. Most writers do not want to make more specifications than need be, and definitely don't want to feel like it's a requirement to do so.

[Dane Regan]

I would say that it's +300 OM for every MAJOR Narrative opportunity created for you OR narrative agency restricted in an opponent, with -300 OM for every major flaw in the move that RESTRICTS your own narrative agency when using the move. That's pretty close to what we have now, and it also cuts out all of the little stuff.

A move pricing change is incredibly unlikely. That's also somewhat vague. What constitutes as "major"?

It also ignores the matter if IC balance, which does still matter. Numbers are typically guidelines and whatnot, but we're not gonna let a skinny teenager smash a skyscraper because it would make the fight harder to write or something.

Also, almost anything can create narrative options for you. Having a move damage yourself is an opportunity. Pricing moves like this could easily take away some of the fun of finding unique and cool ways to write your moves and actions.

[Handsome Jack]

Options (Mix and Match to create a Move!)


Burst Damage
Short Melee: weapons around the size of a dagger. Can include broken bottles, saps, brass knuckles, or even just energy coated fists.

Medium Melee: weapons around the size of a long sword. Can include hammers, clubs, sickles, shortspears, and the like.

Long Melee: weapons around the size of a spear. Can include whips, halberds, scythes, etc.

Slow Ranged: Ranged weapons which fire slowly. Shotguns, rocket launches, or charged energy attacks.

Average Ranged: Ranged weapons which fire as a moderate pace. Semi-automatic handguns, baseballs, etc.

Fast Ranged: Ranged weapons that fire at a quick pace. Machine guns or rapid fire ki attacks.

Debuffs
Damage over Time: Attacks which deal continuous damage over a period of time.

Slow: Attacks which limit an opponent’s movement.

Confusion: Attacks which limit an opponent’s understanding.

Lock: Attacks which can temporarily remove access to a Power.

Buffs
Attack Ally: Moves which can bring in objects or entities that attack foes.

Defend Ally: Moves which bring in objects or entities that defend the user or others.

Area: Moves which can affect multiple targets.

Power: Moves which can grant a Power to an ally.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a really simple list I did up for an example. It only has a few options on it (we’d want quite a few more), but with this list you have nearly infinite flavour for a variety of Buff, Debuff, and Attack Moves. You could make Thor’s Hammer, a Flamebrand, an M4 with Grenade Launcher, a Psychic Wave of Confusion, a Zombie, etc. Each option would be priced individually, with the more options you take, the more expensive the Move becoming. It also removes the need for most if not all Proficiencies, by adding the cost for these into the “Option Costs.” And we should be able to refit all the existing Moves within this system, though the pricing of quite a few would probably increase.

I can't promise it would fix every issue, but it'd be simple to build Moves (just pick the options that fit what you want to do), simple to Price (all the prices for the Move are built from the options), and simple to approve (does the Move include what they purchased and nothing more?).

[Dane Regan]

More generalized terms like "short, long, fast, slow, etc." more easily serve the circumstances of writing and writing RP, while also allowing the specifications of numbers for the actual RP process. Most writers do not want to make more specifications than need be, and definitely don't want to feel like it's a requirement to do so.

The problem with that is fast/slow mean different things to different people. If you bring over someone who's unfamiliar with guns, they're definitely not going to know what it means. Unless they do lots of google-fu. I could easily see fast and think "yeah, he can unload all 6 shots in a couple of seconds" where the original move's intention was for it to take about 3 times as long. Throwing in a simple number doesn't really pad out the word count or anything, but improves the comprehensibility a lot. Anyway, "about a second" still included the word "about". You can easily speed it up a little for the narrative.

And then, when you bring that to other things - such as spells - they don't even have the "gun" context to work off. So they almost definitely need the numbers. Unless we want to make some table in the rules about "fast means this" or something. But I don't think people would wanna have to open the rules just to scroll through some annoying glossary of terms.

[Mickey Mouse]

More generalized terms like "short, long, fast, slow, etc." more easily serve the circumstances of writing and writing RP, while also allowing the specifications of numbers for the actual RP process. Most writers do not want to make more specifications than need be, and definitely don't want to feel like it's a requirement to do so.

The problem with that is fast/slow mean different things to different people. If you bring over someone who's unfamiliar with guns, they're definitely not going to know what it means. Unless they do lots of google-fu. I could easily see fast and think "yeah, he can unload all 6 shots in a couple of seconds" where the original move's intention was for it to take about 3 times as long. Throwing in a simple number doesn't really pad out the word count or anything, but improves the comprehensibility a lot. Anyway, "about a second" still included the word "about". You can easily speed it up a little for the narrative.

And then, when you bring that to other things - such as spells - they don't even have the "gun" context to work off. So they almost definitely need the numbers. Unless we want to make some table in the rules about "fast means this" or something. But I don't think people would wanna have to open the rules just to scroll through some annoying glossary of terms.

This is a spell I have that was approved and purchased in 2015: 

Pearl: A spell of Light, Mickey can fire small orbs of white energy from the tip of his Keyblade that can home in on opponents at relatively close range. Mickey can charge these orbs to make them more powerful. This is Mickey’s signature spell.

I think it’s pretty comprehensible, and simply worded with no numbers. I judge it wouldn’t get approved these days. Which puzzles me, because I really do think it’s simple to understand and saying the orbs are the size of a tennis ball or something would be superfluous.

[Dane Regan]

One last comment before I sleep. Some people also mentioned it somewhat but:

While not all the numbers or specifics will help all of you, I can guarantee you that they definitely assist some of the writers here. Either as a visual aid to help picture how a fight might turn out, or simply as a bit of fodder for them to decide whether or not to dodge something (faster magic bolts are gonna be harder to dodge than a slow one). The numbers enforce a sense of "game balance" and do often assist with writing (you might all be well behaved, but it does help keep some newer joiners "in line" or whatever).

Yes, there are cases of things being asked for in moves that shouldn't be required - and if you can pick out something from the current checklist that shouldn't need to be asked, go ahead. Although I'd like a bit of reasoning too. Imo, I reckon we can probably assume more about charge times than we currently do, at the very least. Since asking about "can you move while charging" or something just feels dumb and finicky. So while I strongly doubt the system will actually change, there are things we can do to make it more streamlined. Such as templates, resources for those making more complex moves, an optional "move builder" of some sort, example moves, as well as some changes in the actual criteria.

BWNN, if you want some generic move that just "does everything", you can always pay more OM and get the extra functionality. I don't think we'll ever appease the "make it up as I go along" thing you want. Some people want their spells to take about 5 seconds. And others find that 5 seconds info useful.

@Mickey: IIRC, the comments Yuuka was referring to were mostly about how I thought an old move would have been priced differently now. Or that it was unbalanced. You can rejig your move through approval if you want, but you don't have to.

That said, now your move would need something along the lines of:
>How does he fire them? Does he just swing the blade and fire one out? Or hold it like a gun? If it's the latter, it'd need a rough max fire rate (for the former, max firing speed is implied).
>How fast are they?
>What is a "close range"?

I probably wouldn't bother asking for a size of them, since the small is probably more obvious here as it's somewhat implied by the side of the actual keyblade.

[PepsiYuuka]

> Maybe. I'm all game for adding a comment to the top of the approval thread about that sorta stuff, urging people to try and make something for their character, or something that their character can actually do. Rather than a percieved game "advantage". But I'm not going to deny a move just because it's 'gamey' or minmaxing, as long as it's balanced. Unless it imposes unfair writing limitations or something.

> When I said "unbalanced older moves" I was referring to some pretty old stuff. Like 2015 or something. I don't really think there is a growing gamey trend though. I mean, sure Shantotto can feel a bit like that with all the comboing and synergy stuff they're trying to do. But... that stuff is also really cool. And I'd assume those are spells their character can do in canon or something. We usually always have some people like that. There's nothing more I can see to do besides advise against it.

> True.

>Hence I can't deny every character just because they're someone from a new and popular thing- but if I know the player to be notorious for switching, I can still gently suggest that they think through their choice again. We can still put a warning that they probably won't love the character forever. I'm not asking for you or anyone else doing moves to completely deny every gamey move that comes your way. But I am thinking that perhaps it would be best to put the moves of chronically "gamey" members through a bit more scrutiny, just like the join team may put the applications of chronic switchers under a bit more scrutiny than say, a new member. We can still put a little warning saying that moves aren't something that need to be hyper-optimized and described to the point of being stressful and un-fun to work with.

>For the most part see above and agree to disagree I guess, but yes, that advice is what I was asking for all along, so I'm glad we agree.

[Luci]

My only concrete advice is to update the example moves we have.

[Daniel]

LuciMy only concrete advice is to update the example moves we have.

On It

Got questions about moves, ask them here.

I have to stress this, No discussions, no answering the questions asked here, I'll get that done after the thread is closed.

Everyone has 2 weeks to ask whatever questions they have about moves, move mechanics, system, etc.

Also, we'll be updating the various move examples around the site, if you think you have a move that is a good example of, well, moves, then PM me the move. Approved Moves only.

[Morene Fellon]

im participatinggggggg yay

Seriously, I suggest to maybe allow more leeway when it comes to describing moves that get approved, that's it. Everything that was mentioned by Thaal beforehand is something I rarely ever see people do, because they usually don't. Beyond that, yes, I feel as if numbers are very important in knowing what my character could or would do in a situation where they'd benefit from it.

A character like mine, Morene Fellon? Of course she'd take note of the length of her opponent's weapon in a melee engagement, and if possible, would strike the fucker by using that to her advantage with a nice thrust from her obviously longer greatsword, or something similar. About the guns too; how reasonable is it we don't describe basic things like how many shots you can fire off before you reload, or if you need to, the time it takes to reload itself? If we didn't have that, imagine getting scenes like this almost every other graded fight scene because it isn't described anywhere lol

To say that these minor details don't matter in a real fight is strange to me; they very well CAN if you play them correctly. Say, would a character like Solomon Grundy need these details though? Fuck no, let him smash shit willy-nilly.

I love putting detail into weapon-based moves especially, because I have hobbies and a soon-to-be-career using them; let me have that, and please try not to shame it! I promise when people describe the weight of their character's sword or something, it isn't to brutally fuck over nooblets at any given opportunity; I get picky about balance as much as the next person who values it.

[Yu Kanda]

I woke up to this thread, obviously i have a steong opinion on this and have like a million things i want to say. However many things have been said already, and instead of banging on the same dead horse i would like to asl the following.

Staff is also fully aware lf this entire situation and how some people are displeased with the number/move games. Let's have them discuss what to so about it and wait for them and Alex's judgement.

[Trixie]

I woke up to this thread, obviously i have a steong opinion on this and have like a million things i want to say. However many things have been said already, and instead of banging on the same dead horse i would like to asl the following.

Staff is also fully aware lf this entire situation and how some people are displeased with the number/move games. Let's have them discuss what to so about it and wait for them and Alex's judgement.

This thread is specifically to get member opinion on the matter and to see where the playerbase stands on the issue. We're not Blizzard. We don't make changes in-house and wonder why everyone is suddenly mad.

[Reece]

In short, my thoughts on this subject are:

I agree with Dane... but Jeff's idea sounds kinda cool.



The more detail a move has, the easier it is for me to write if I'm fighting against your character in PvP or fighting alongside them in PvE. Detail matters because it means that the people you're writing with can easily tell how your moves work. I've looked at old moves, and I can say with certainty that many are too vague.

It isn't difficult to add details into a move. It may be difficult to balance them... I may write a move and think it deserves to be powerful, but then get told that it should actually only deal mediocre damage, given the strength of its drawbacks. But that's not such a big deal. Usually it just means changing a word or two and re-submitting it.

That said, I feel like for people who do struggle to do this, a list of example moves would be useful.
Yes, I know we already have one of those... but I mean a list that isn't grossly outdated.



Also:

Did a quick look at your Torch

"Short Melee Weapon"
"Fatigue Debuff"
"Area Debuff"
"Confusion Debuff"

Would that cover everything? Did I miss an option? With those, I think you could use flavour to make the Torch.

It's also got some buffs in there. But okay, yeah. Long as it's still possible to get creative in it, it sounds like a fair system.

Options (Mix and Match to create a Move!)


Burst Damage
Short Melee: weapons around the size of a dagger. Can include broken bottles, saps, brass knuckles, or even just energy coated fists.

Medium Melee: weapons around the size of a long sword. Can include hammers, clubs, sickles, shortspears, and the like.

Long Melee: weapons around the size of a spear. Can include whips, halberds, scythes, etc.

Slow Ranged: Ranged weapons which fire slowly. Shotguns, rocket launches, or charged energy attacks.

Average Ranged: Ranged weapons which fire as a moderate pace. Semi-automatic handguns, baseballs, etc.

Fast Ranged: Ranged weapons that fire at a quick pace. Machine guns or rapid fire ki attacks.

Debuffs
Damage over Time: Attacks which deal continuous damage over a period of time.

Slow: Attacks which limit an opponent’s movement.

Confusion: Attacks which limit an opponent’s understanding.

Lock: Attacks which can temporarily remove access to a Power.

Buffs
Attack Ally: Moves which can bring in objects or entities that attack foes.

Defend Ally: Moves which bring in objects or entities that defend the user or others.

Area: Moves which can affect multiple targets.

Power: Moves which can grant a Power to an ally.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a really simple list I did up for an example. It only has a few options on it (we’d want quite a few more), but with this list you have nearly infinite flavour for a variety of Buff, Debuff, and Attack Moves. You could make Thor’s Hammer, a Flamebrand, an M4 with Grenade Launcher, a Psychic Wave of Confusion, a Zombie, etc. Each option would be priced individually, with the more options you take, the more expensive the Move becoming. It also removes the need for most if not all Proficiencies, by adding the cost for these into the “Option Costs.” And we should be able to refit all the existing Moves within this system, though the pricing of quite a few would probably increase.

I can't promise it would fix every issue, but it'd be simple to build Moves (just pick the options that fit what you want to do), simple to Price (all the prices for the Move are built from the options), and simple to approve (does the Move include what they purchased and nothing more?).

To me this basically sounds like you're saying "pay 300 OM for each Prof/Power requirement"... yeah, I know that that's not exactly what you mean, but for simplicity's sake I think it'd be better to either change the 'option costs' to match the power/proficiency lists we already have... or change the proficiency list to match the option costs and just have powers being purely stand-alones that are never used in move creation.
Which... is actually a really interesting idea. I do like the current system, but if it was to be changed at all then something like this seems like it'd be an interesting way to do it.

That said, I don't agree with removing the Proficiencies. The move costs, IMO, should be in addition to buying those. It's already much easier to get lots of moves than to buy even a few stat-upgrades, PU-upgrades or alternate forms... if that was to change then I'd argue that everything else should be reduced in cost too, to make the system fairer for low-complexity, high-power characters (e.g. Kenpachi).

The idea of paying 300 for each requirement is a very simple and easy way of pricing moves, which would allow people like CP to do a whole lot of interesting things without necessarily having to spend an absolute fortune in OM. It would also be far, far, far more balanced than what Bandit is suggesting.
Sorry dude, it's nothing personal, but basing move prices off of narrative opportunities/restrictions is a terrible idea. It's extremely vague and therefore easy to misinterpret. It would be essentially unmanageable. Move pricing would be absurdly inconsistent...


The only other thing I'd like to add is that if we were to try something like Jeff's suggestion (which actually sounds more appealing to me the more I think about it...) we would still need to make sure that appropriate aesthetic detail is included.
Mickey mentioned that he got a move approved recently without describing its appearance... I'm not sure how that happened, but it shouldn't have. Aesthetics are vitally important to people you're writing with and who will need to write your moves in their posts.

[Trixie]

The more detail a move has, the easier it is for me to write if I'm fighting against your character in PvP or fighting alongside them in PvE. Detail matters because it means that the people you're writing with can easily tell how your moves work. I've looked at old moves, and I can say with certainty that many are too vague.

Just gonna grab this quote to convey a thought in general. 

I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but what's stopping you from talking to your writing partner/opponent about specifics? If a move is vague and you're unclear of how it works in regard to their character you can always ask that person to explain how they intend it to work and roll with that. Me and Alex run dialogue, ideas, post excerpts, and the like by each other for everything we do and we've been writing together since 2009. If we don't know we ask. I had a 20 minute conversation with Skeletor about our fight in DA on Broly before the round had even started. We were planning out what might work, what might be hilarious, and what might not fly. He's even sent me a few questions about dialogue. If you're not doing this when you're writing with someone and complaining about the vague nature of moves/their character, then it isn't the system. It's the user/writer behind the keyboard not utilizing every avenue to the fullest.

[Reece]

I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but what's stopping you from talking to your writing partner/opponent about specifics?

People have lives.

Not such an issue for co-op threads, but for fights with deadlines this is absolutely a big deal. And one that I've had recently. In my first round 2 DA post I described Marisa's Mini Spark move are being a rainbow coloured beam, because her Master Spark move is rainbow coloured, so it's probably a good guess... but it is just a guess, because the colour of the beam is never mentioned in the move itself.
I did try to ask them a couple times about it, but they weren't on Discord at the times in question, and obviously I couldn't wait forever with a 48 hour deadline.

Also, even in the situations where this does work out... why would you ever think it's better to have to go to someone and ask about how their moves work rather than just approving moves that contain all the necessary information to begin with?

Yes, obviously we'll need to take your approach with old moves, since re-apping them all would be an enormous task... I'm not suggesting we try and do that. But going forwards, I don't see why we shouldn't hold people to a higher standard.

[Trixie]

Communicating with your fellow writers is that higher standard.

[Reece]

Communicating with your fellow writers is that higher standard.

I'm not saying we shouldn't communicate.

I'm just saying that it shouldn't be necessary in order to understand how their moves function.

There's no reason not to still talk about story.

Anyone who reads your roster should know exactly how your moves function. It shouldn't be necessary to interrogate your partner to find out basic details.

Would you approve this move?:

Fireball (300)
(Ranged Prof)
My character can throw fireballs. PM me for details.

[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:

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.

[Bandit With No Name]

BWNN, if you want some generic move that just "does everything", you can always pay more OM and get the extra functionality. I don't think we'll ever appease the "make it up as I go along" thing you want. Some people want their spells to take about 5 seconds. And others find that 5 seconds info useful.

Wow I've never been so misheard to d in my life. Yeah, count me out if this shit. I'm not willing to discuss this with you if this is the level of cooperation and good intention I'm gonna get back.

This many people are passed because there's something WRONG. If you don't listen to your players, there's no chance.