How about letting moves subtract Bonds others have with you ? Example:
“When you give someone a gift, gain a bond with them, or subtract one bond they have with you, your choice.”
Depending on the situation it seems it could be more advantageous to deny people of bonds, then getting bonds with them. And most of times this could be easily justified in the fiction ( “Here, this is for you. Now we’re even” ).
Has anyone thought about this before ?
My first impression is that having more currency for one’s PC is better than removing currency from other’s PCs. The first option represents the gaining of a new opportunity, whereas the second one removes one opportunity to another. That’s why I think the move is more interesting as it is.
Daniele Di Rubbo, the thought occurred after a player schemed to betray another. As the target had a handful of bonds on him, he thought it would be pretty difficult to execute without a way to reduce those bonds, as the target could simply use those bonds to interfere his ambushing roll ( supposing he was aware of it of course – if he wasn’t the MC could deny the use of those bonds).
The same reasoning is valid for fights/duels/conflicts. Without a way to reduce bonds, it becomes counterproductive/risky/suicidal to try out such things against opponents with considerable amounts of bonds on you.
If they’ve got a lot of bonds on you, you probably aren’t being risky enough? The best way to lessen the number of bonds someone has on you is to do something they don’t want you to do. If they won’t spend their bonds when you’re busy burning their house to the ground, what makes you think they’ll spend their bonds when you’re pulling off your grand plot?
Probably nothing should ever be “safe”.