I’d like to compare and contrast the PbtA moves and procedures with remote analogs in other domains – specifically, the McCarthy’s Protocols http://www.mccarthyshow.com/online/ for shared vision (primarily shared vision for agile software development), and parliamentary procedure such as Robert’s Rules (though everyone agrees those are too heavyweight) – one lighterweight alternative is Rosenberg’s – which is ten pages if you google it, or there’s a one page cheat sheet here: http://www.soronc.org/files/committees/Board/2011/051911_SORONC_board_RosenbergsRulesCheatSheet.pdf
Alistair Cockburn has written about optimistic vs. pessimistic protocols here: http://alistair.cockburn.us/Optimistic+versus+pessimistic+protocols/v/multi
Essentially, the parliamentary procedures are deeply pessimistic, suitable for groups that contain deep rifts regarding values and goals. The McCarthy’s Core protocols are fairly pessimistic. To what extent are Powered By The Apocalypse’s procedures optimistic or pessimistic?
Motions in parliamentary procedure probably do not correspond to PtbA moves – or do they? Is there a name for the thing with a lifetime starting with the MC doing a soft move, and ends with the MC doing a hard move?
As PbtA is an engine, and each game built on it has a slightly different take on how to apply that engine, I don’t think you could say that PbtA is optimistic or pessimistic, although that might be a way to examine games built on that engine. Personally, I see Apocalypse World as an optimistic game. Possibly they all are.
As to a name for the progression of moves from softer to harder, there’s Moves Snowball, but as the MC always gets to choose what move they make, there’s no set order, and things may move from a really hard move to a really soft move just as easily as the other way.
Clearly, there’s a progression of actions in the game – you do things in an order according to the rules – but that applies to the whole game, not just MC moves.