OK, for some really weird reason I can respond to you but not to @jasondotjson@cupoftea.social. So I’ll put my response to his question here. This is not a response to you, just me working around a weird problem:

Could you tell me a bit more about your problems with moves? Is it just that they’re 2d6 or is it something with the way they’re usually structured?

What they most remind me of are the “drama deck” of games like Torg, Shatterzone, and Masterbook. When those were introduced I saw what they were trying to do: by providing a mechanical benefit to doing something other than “I try to hit him with my sword/gun/whatever”, they were trying to induce people to do more creative things. And while some elements of the drama deck were very effective and innovative ways to reflect the ebb and flow of dramatic situations (not just combat), the “approved actions” part (which is what “moves” look like to me) was, as far as I’m concerned, an abject failure.

The intent of an approved action was simple: if you succeeded at an approved action, you got to draw a new drama card for your hand. The approved actions were things like “attack”, “defend”, “test of wills”, “trick”, “taunt”, etc. And the problem with them was that people, to get that mechanical advantage, would contrive just the DUMBEST THINGS IMAGINABLE to get that sweet, sweet card draw. A lot of situations that were plenty dramatic without the drama deck started becoming farcical instead.

These “moves” look to me like the drama deck’s “approved action”. Only somehow even worse since they’re always there, not switched out on you. They feel like a proverbial “Chinese Restaurant” menu: one from column A, two from column B and then people act as if this somehow liberates them. To me it feels like it constrains them. I don’t even see what problem they were trying to solve by having these, which makes understanding their appeal impossible, as you can imagine.