149. Putting the Consequences Off into the Snowball

In reply to my last post, Nachiket Paktar linked to a thread in the Barf Forth forum that began in early 2017, here: http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=8835.60. It’s a lengthy discussion about the changes made to seize by force in the second edition. On page 4, Vincent joins the discussion and clarifies, through a conversation with Paul T. why seize by force was moved from the basic moves into the battle moves, and why in doing so, the miss was given a specific consequence rather than the “prepare for the worst” warning that comes with all the basic moves.

Here’s what he says in reply #64:

I changed seizing by force in order to put it into position at the head of the new battle moves. This requires it to put more of its consequences off into the snowball than it did in 1st Ed, to make the opening for the other moves to lead and follow it.

That notion of putting “more of its consequences off into the snowball” is I think a pretty mind-shaking idea, at least it is to me.

He goes on to further clarify in reply #79:

The basic moves have to work across contexts. You can act under fire, for instance, in battle, in the bedroom, trying to fix a car, trying to sneak away without causing any problems for anybody, trying to wait for a signal before you move. They can specify what happens on a hit, because those are the effects you're hoping to introduce into play, but they can't specify the miss because they can't presume the context. Imagine if acting under fire said "on a miss, you take harm as established," for instance. Now it only works when there's harm established, not when you're in the bedroom and not when you're waiting for a signal and getting impatient to move.

The non-basic moves, all of them, contrariwise, have to specify or create the context in which they work. One of the ways they do this is by specifying misses. Another is by specifying who can make them (in the case of the character moves) and/or where you have to be to make them (in the case of the peripheral moves) and/or what has to be going on for you to make them (in the case of the battle moves). They have to do this because otherwise they would be basic moves: whoevs would be able to do them whenevs.

In the 1st Edition, the battle moves were specifically flagged as "optional," meaning that they were presumed out of play unless you specifically chose to bring them in. Seizing by force was the basic move alternative to the whole set of battle moves. In the 2nd Edition, though, the battle moves are only the normal amount optional: presumed in play whenever you want to use one. This is why "do battle" appears on the 2nd Ed playbooks under hard. Doing battle, not seizing by force, is now the basic move.

He continues this thought in reply #83:

In 2nd Ed, seizing by force has a specific context. It's prescriptive and descriptive: you can only seize by force in battle; if you seize by force, that's great, now you're in battle. Since it has a specific context, the move no longer needs to work across contexts, so it's no longer a basic move and now it gets a miss effect. Its miss effect plays its part in creating what "in battle" means, along with all the other battle moves, the rules for exchanging harm, and a bunch of other stuff.

So now. You can always resolve a battle with a single seize by force move, treating seizing by force as the basic move it was in 1st Ed. The move is written now with the presumption that you won't always do that, but in fact you can do it whenever you want, including always. That's no problem by the rules and I think we've been over that.

Instead, can you imagine situations where, as the player or as the MC, resolving the battle with the single move feels kind of abrupt, or else feels kind of overreaching, or else doesn't give you the precise outcome you hope for, so you WANT to:
- Turn the tables before seizing by force?
- Hunt prey after seizing by force?
- Escape a hunter after seizing by force?
- Outdistance another vehicle before seizing by force?
- Board another vehicle before seizing by force?
- Etc?

And reply #85:

So, yes, exactly: seizing by force now has a more concrete, less abstract range of possible outcomes, explicitly on the miss, implicitly on the hits. But the broad range of possible outcomes still exists, in battle, not in the single move. Each of the battle moves has narrower possible outcomes individually, but when you consider how they might organically combine, you don't lose any of the possible scaling, any of the possible zooming.

You trade away the range of outcomes in the single move, and in return you get, not the identical range of outcomes, but as broad a range, embedded in a broader range and diversity of possible battles. Plus better pacing.

That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. I wouldn't claim that it works perfectly and universally, because who knows. But from all I've heard, and from my own play, it works very well overall. The new battle moves get a million times more enthusiastic play than the old ones ever did, which means that seizing by force is doing its new job of leading people enthusiastically into them.

That's where I was going!

And finally (for my purposes), he sums things up in reply #92:

It's not about simplifying seizing by force at all. It's about putting more of the move's consequences off into the snowball, like I've been saying, to create the opening for the other battle moves to lead and follow it. Explicitly follow on the miss, implicitly lead and follow on a hit.

I don't want to oversell it as a big part. It's just one piece of it. But it does play its own small, definite part in making battles flow.

The miss conditions in a move shape how moves connect to continued situations and other moves. In the case of battle moves, the matter of harm creates and clock that gives characters a limited time (and corresponding pressure) to achieve the overall goal of a battle, not just temporary goals. The specific narrative ramifications of an action shape the choices available to the player, and the player’s choices from the seize by force picklist shape the choices available to the MC. Seize by force can solve the whole battle in one roll as it always has been able to do, or it can easily fit together with the other battle moves that have now been put on an equal par with seize by force.

The shape and particulars of a move’s miss condition (as well as it’s hit options, of course) determines how it fits in with other available moves. Snowballing is not an accident of narrative, but a structure of possibilities determined by a move’s construction. How much does a move resolve at all die results? How much does a move change the situation and leave new room for other actions, again at all die results? These are important things to think about when looking at moves.