I’m re-reading Avery Mcdaldno’s wonderful Monsterhearts and found myself questioning why they made three moves out of what seems like it could be one.
I’m thinking here of “manipulate an NPC” which seems like it could cover “shut someone down” and “turn someone on” (at least for NPCs).
However, “manipulate an NPC” specifically says “It requires you to actually want something from the NPC, rather than just wanting to cow them or manipulate their emotions (see when you shut someone down for that). ”
I’m wondering what the thought/design process was for that. I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts, not just Avery’s!
For me, it’s because the game specifically wants to drive you towards turning people on and shutting people down if you want to affect them.
Yeah, it’s about removing the ambiguity: are you trying to turn me on, shut me down, or get me to do or think a thing? Use the move that fits.
So, you can turn anyone on to get a String from them.
You can spend a String to manipulate a PC (offer them XP to do what you want, make them hold steady if they do a thing, etc).
I didn’t want you to be able to spend a String to manipulate an NPC on the same terms, because then the MC is making a lot of sweeping fiat decisions about the effectiveness of Strings being spent. So I created a separate move.