Analyzing the Crabby Moves by Ross Cowman
I am not a big fan of the Crabby Moves and think they don’t really work in Monsterhearts as written (at least in the way I usually play) and I think that is because of 3 reasons that I want to explore in this post
1. They disrupt the String economy
2. They sometimes interact weirdly with other Skin moves
3. They sometimes are worded/work weirdly
Let’s tackle them one by one
1. They disrupt the String economy
Looking at the basic moves there are two main ways to gain strings on people.
Turning them on or lashing out at them. Neither does that reliably as Turn on requires a 10+ or their choice on a 7-9.
Lashing out requires that you take that option on a 10+.
You can also get a String on Shut someone down but only if they have no strings on you that you can remove and you pick that option.
In the Crabby Moves
Turn someone On does give you a string on a 10+ and an extra effect or maybe on a 7-9.
On a 10+ with Shut someone down you gain a string on them.
The option on Lash Out is removed. You can’t beat people up to gain emotional hold over them.
Now in the Basic move there is one option to remove Strings from people.
Shut someone down. On a 10+ you take their strings, on a 7-9 you both lose them.
In the Crabby Moves, there is no option of making people lose strings. It turns Shut from a “defensive” Move that you use to show people that they can’t control you into more of a bullying tool that you use to make people feel bad and then show your superiority over them.
I think that Shut acts as a safety valve so that people can’t just take more and more strings on someone. There is at least a way to fight back. Also a 7-9 on normal Shut can remove strings from both parties while in the Crabby moves it gives THEM a string on you.
How does this kind of behaviour get stopped in the Crabby moves?
The removal of the option of getting a String with Lash turns it from a violence move with social implications into a pure fighting move and removes it fully from the string game. I don’t think I am a fan of this.
2. They sometimes interact weirdly with other Skin moves
As I am writing this there is actually less weird interactions then I thought. Here is what I found:
Infernal: Unknowable
When you lash out physically against someone, on a 10 up, they lose 1 String ���������������������������������������� options: they lose 1 String on you.
With this only the Infernal (or people with this move) have the option of making people lose strings on them and only with violence.
Vampire: Hypnotic
Is weird because it requires your victim to not have strings on you. Without a way to make people lose strings this gets way harder. Maybe this is an acceptable nerf of the maybe most powerful move in the game?
Vampire: Cold as Ice
When you successfully shut someone down (7 up), you may choose an extra option from the 7-9 list.
Now this IS weird. For one there is no 7-9 list. Second choosing two things from the list might not make sense together or might not feel rewarding enough. They apologize & shut up and take it?
They apologize & walk away? They walk away & shut up and take it?
Not ideal… A fix might be that you get to choose what option they can’t pick? Not sure here.
Werewolf: Primal Dominance
When you harm someone, take a String on them.
Now the Werewolf (or others with that move) are the only ones that can use violence to get social hold on people instead of Werewolves just being better at it.
The Infernal and the Werewolf move could be seen as fixes or extra costs for people that want these options but the Vampire thing is weird. All in all not too bad. It depends on how important you thing the changes I talked about in bulletpoint 1 are.
3. They sometimes are worded/work weirdly
Hold Steady:
On a 10+ you have 3 options:
} you handle it like a badass
} something gives you strength or respite, tell us what and remove a Conditon
} something gives you an advantage, tell us what and take two forward
I am not sure how this is supposed to work out? Does the scary thing still happen when you don’t chose to handle it like a badass? If not why would you choose that option when the others give you more advantages?
Shut someone down:
On a 10 up, deal your harm as established and choose one:
} the harm is great (plus 1 harm)
} the harm is scarring (physicaly or emotionaly)
} the harm is frightening or horrifying
It feels like option 2 and 3 feel very similar. When you scar someone physically it might still be frightening. When the harm is horrifying then it might also scar the opposition emotionally. I think the options are supposed to be focused either on the victim or on the audience but the two things are not that different, are they? Also if you scar the oposition, why don’t you put a condition on them?
Also, when the harm is great (+1 harm) why can’t it be frightening?
The three options are just sooo similar…
Run Away:
This is basically the same as the normal move BUT on a 7-9 it doesn’t actually say that you get away from the scene. Minor point but I thought it’s worth mentioning.
Gaze into the Abyss:
I feel like
} The visions are lucid and detailed
} The visions show you what you must know
Are very similar. It takes some effort to always distinguish them. Yes I can imagine moments where the difference matters but one option less wouldn’t hurt the move, would they?
What do you think? Am I just overanalyzing? Is getting strings and spending strings enough for the string economy?
Having clear visions is very different from having visions that are guaranteed to contain useful info
The problem is, Gaze into the Abyss is a move to get information.
Why would you have to select that option?
By the principles, if the MC doesn’t give you useful information, they are taking your success away from you.
The core moves are pretty great
This is a good analysis. To address any move’s impact on the string economy, it makes me wonder what the purpose of the string economy is. What are we trying to get from it to help us build this particular kind of story?
I don’t know if that question is really helpful. I don’t play RPGs to tell a story. I play them for the game sakes and because talking in voices is fun. Story just happens because of that. So I am not the best person to talk about this/like this.
Still let me try.
With normal moves you have stories where people can get influence over you by turning you on or beating you up. You can get rid of that influence they have over you by being mean to them and hurting their feelings. Sometimes that can get you influence over them but mostly that is behaviour that destroys the social bonds between you two. It also means that you can be mean and hurtful to others but that won’t stop them from acting (while the Crabby moves make Shut someone down into a “stop doing what you are doing!” Move which original Shut is by design not).
From a design standpoint I think it is more interesting when you can interact with the strings others have on you. Just gaining and spending them is not as interesting.
I played with both versions and I think they both work in their own ways.
Maybe my fellow players who played with the Crabby have an opinion 😉
Andy Yount Ursus Lenis Jeroen van Lier Adam West
Forgive my omission, I should have written how does the string economy help us build the story or have the game we want. Until I understand what I would like strings (or something similar) to do in the game – what role I want them to play – I can’t say if it’s a problem or not for players not to be able to reduce the strings other players have (aside from the specific points you’ve highlighted where it breaks specific moves). This is beyond the OP though so I’ll take it to another thread.
My earlier feelings about the Crabby moves – and why I didn’t have a general problem with changing the string direction in Shut Down – is that I saw gaining them and then losing them as less interesting. A turns B on and gets a string, B shuts A down and A loses the string, and repeat. It reminds me of combat where A rolls to hit B and then B rolls their armour save. Two sets of dice have been rolled and nothing has changed. Monsterhearts is better than that, though, as at least there is narrative content generated in the Turn On Shut Down combination, even if there is no mechanical change.
Now my feelings are that I no longer follow what service strings are providing. And as 4 of the 7 basic moves have possible string consequences I need to sort that out in my own mind first.
Mechanical change is tied to social change, though. You can’t Turn Someone on or Shut Someone Down without changing your relationship twice.
Also your Turn On might be not your character doing it actively. You might just turn them on by being super hot. Now they feel something and react. They come over there and talk shit about you.
From your perspective, you did nothing. This punk just came here and talked shit about you.
Adam Goldberg That’s true, but not a distinction between the Basic Moves and the Crabby Moves. It doesn’t matter which move sheet I’m using, the narrative impact is the same. The mechanical impact though can be different:
– Under Basic Moves there is net no mechanical change (A took a string and then lost a string)
– Under Crabby Moves we end up with A having a string and B having a string.
That’s the way the flipped Shut Down impacts the String economy.