What do you think about Powered by the Apocalypse games?

[dragoner]

As a fairly introverted person I find the way the GM passes the spotlight onto individual characters in a PbtA or Forged in the Dark game gives me a lot more of a chance to have my moments than in games where "What do you do?" is addressed to the group rather than individual player characters. On the other hand, it does place pressure to like make decisions that not everyone wants.

It is a balancing act, as some people do not want to be forced out of their comfort zone either, if they just want a more passive role, I let them do that, that is my usual style at least, not tied to any system.

 

[innerdude]

One final note ---

As a rule, PbtA favors smaller groups than other systems. A GM with 2-3 players is very much supported, and possibly even preferred.

4 players is do-able; 5 players would stretch the ability to account for the various character agendas. I personally wouldn't want to GM a PbtA group with more than 4 players, and the sweet spot would definitely be 3.

 

[ART!]

One final note ---

As a rule, PbtA favors smaller groups than other systems. A GM with 2-3 players is very much supported, and possibly even preferred.

4 players is do-able; 5 players would stretch the ability to account for the various character agendas. I personally wouldn't want to GM a PbtA group with more than 4 players, and the sweet spot would definitely be 3.

Is this something any of the rules sets point out? I don't recall seeing that guideline anywhere in Masks - and when it comes to Masks, if you're trying to emulate teen super-hero teams you're going to have 4-7 characters.

 

[Hex08]

Once you've really gotten the hang of a given PbtA or FitD game, I think it's true that it's very minimal prep. But I also think making the transition from running more traditional games to running PbtA/FitD can be surprisingly difficult and time consuming. @John R Davis said upthread that you can play those games "wrong." I think you can absolutely run them wrong, too. There's so much you really need to reconfigure, about how a session might be paced (nearly always much, much faster than a trad game), how many NPCs you should be ready to provide names and info for, but maybe the biggest change you have to be prepared for is how much improvising you'll have to do, specifically to come up consequence after consequence.

To me, that was the most nerve-wracking part. If the average roll is a success with a consequence, how the hell do I constantly come up with interesting ways for a character to essentially fail while succeeding? But I had it wrong, because I was still thinking about consequences like critical failures (or similar) in other games. Like maybe you shoot the guy but the gun jams? Ok, but does that mean when the next PC also rolls a 7 to 9, they also jam, or they drop their gun, or something else that cumulatively makes the entire group seem like a bunch of clumsy dweebs?

It only made sense to me once I had read a ton of different games and listened to a bunch of podcasts (and peppered folks on here with questions), that consequences do not, and often should not, have to be PC fumbles. They can be something totally unrelated that increases the danger or stakes. They can mean you hear police sirens or a friendly NPC is hurt (not by a stray shot of yours, btw) or that, miles away, some enemy's plan is set in motion. Consequences just keep the whole engine moving--they're prompts for all sorts of improvised changes to the scene. And sure, sometimes they mean your gun jams or you hit a bystander, just not always.

So the prep, to me, is about reading lots of examples of consequences that other GMs have used, and sort of greasing your mental wheels, getting yourself ready to improvise the hell out of situation after situation, including by really familiarizing yourself with the setting and tone and related tropes. But once you have that front-loaded, overall prep done (and it's fun, imo, to reboot your brain to really do it) the individual sessions are definitely little-to-no prep.

That was really helpful, thanks.

 

[payn]

One final note ---

As a rule, PbtA favors smaller groups than other systems. A GM with 2-3 players is very much supported, and possibly even preferred.

4 players is do-able; 5 players would stretch the ability to account for the various character agendas. I personally wouldn't want to GM a PbtA group with more than 4 players, and the sweet spot would definitely be 3.

I can see that. Personally, I dont like running a game for anymore than 5 players in any system.

 

[ART!]

Once you've really gotten the hang of a given PbtA or FitD game, I think it's true that it's very minimal prep. But I also think making the transition from running more traditional games to running PbtA/FitD can be surprisingly difficult and time consuming. @John R Davis said upthread that you can play those games "wrong." I think you can absolutely run them wrong, too. There's so much you really need to reconfigure, about how a session might be paced (nearly always much, much faster than a trad game), how many NPCs you should be ready to provide names and info for, but maybe the biggest change you have to be prepared for is how much improvising you'll have to do, specifically to come up consequence after consequence.

To me, that was the most nerve-wracking part. If the average roll is a success with a consequence, how the hell do I constantly come up with interesting ways for a character to essentially fail while succeeding? But I had it wrong, because I was still thinking about consequences like critical failures (or similar) in other games. Like maybe you shoot the guy but the gun jams? Ok, but does that mean when the next PC also rolls a 7 to 9, they also jam, or they drop their gun, or something else that cumulatively makes the entire group seem like a bunch of clumsy dweebs?

This is exactly my experience. It was exhausting and frustrating, to the point that I think I had a panic attack during one session.

It only made sense to me once I had read a ton of different games and listened to a bunch of podcasts (and peppered folks on here with questions), that consequences do not, and often should not, have to be PC fumbles. They can be something totally unrelated that increases the danger or stakes. They can mean you hear police sirens or a friendly NPC is hurt (not by a stray shot of yours, btw) or that, miles away, some enemy's plan is set in motion. Consequences just keep the whole engine moving--they're prompts for all sorts of improvised changes to the scene. And sure, sometimes they mean your gun jams or you hit a bystander, just not always.

So the prep, to me, is about reading lots of examples of consequences that other GMs have used, and sort of greasing your mental wheels, getting yourself ready to improvise the hell out of situation after situation, including by really familiarizing yourself with the setting and tone and related tropes. But once you have that front-loaded, overall prep done (and it's fun, imo, to reboot your brain to really do it) the individual sessions are definitely little-to-no prep.

But...but...that sounds exhausting, too!

 

[Manbearcat]

I know very little, really next to nothing. I think I have a basic understanding of what a move is from reading posts here and that there is supposed to be minimal prep time for the games but beyond that I'm a blank slate. It also seems like the player does as much, if not more than, the GM to drive the story. I'm really looking for something new, it's one of the reasons I'm curious about the games, and I tend not to judge new concepts until I've tried them or seen them in action.

My only concern is the people I play with. All of my players are willing to try anything but I worry about a couple of them being able to drive their own stories, which seems like it might be a big deal with this style of gaming.

On the concern of "the people I (you) play with," here are some thoughts to supplement what others have said to you already. My take is that these games are not a problem for introverted people at all (I've GMed for several introverts). However, there is a subtype of introvert who will be (1) below in which this game can be a problem for. Here are 3 player traits that can be a problem for Story Now games like most (but not all...some of them, like Monster of the Week, have a fair amount of "Trad DNA") PBtA games:

(1) Passive players who have either the internal wiring or have uploaded the software patch that predisposes them to behave as though they believe they should be participating in a metaplot of the GM/module's construction and implementation. These games are the antithesis of both passive participation and a metaplot of the GM/module's construction and implementation. While these games are not remotely GM-less (they require extremely deft, conscientious GMing at every moment of play), the requirement of players is what is most unique. They have to bring both creative energy and purpose as well as flexibility and the understanding that they need to be curious participants. These aren't games where you bring in a conception of character and ruthlessly work to map it onto play nor are these games where the GM is looking to fulfill some kind of power fantasy...quite the opposite. These are games where you (the player) have some ideas of who this PC might be, advocate for those ideas thematically, the GM frames thematically appropriate obstacles which oppose the dramatic needs of your character...and we all find out who your character is.

(2) Players whose cognitive biases (this is typically a combination of a particular type of mental model that is groomed over the course of decades + an internal wiring that predisposes them toward that mental model) impose upon them an insistence for granular process simulation at each moment of play. Genre logic + game conceit logic + a certain type of abstraction/zoom = frustration for these types of players. A rare few players of this archetype can toggle out of this. Most can't. These games are centered around genre logic + game conceit logic + a certain type of abstraction/zoom...so take that into your calculus as the handling of the 7-9 result and the 6- result (so 75 % of play) is premised upon these things.

(3) Players whose mental framework predisposes them toward perceiving success with complications (the 7-9 result) in a "glass-half-empty" rather than a "glass-half-full" sort of way. From the players side, you can aptly describe these games as "spinning plates." You're managing a collection of accreting fictional parameters and new stuff that will fill your life with thematically/genre-appropriate adventure/danger/struggle/discovery. You have a huge amount of capability (equal parts playbook + PC build design + integration with game engine/principles of play) to bear this load...but if you're a "glass-half-empty" type and "a lot of emergent stuff continuously happening > resolving > happening again" makes you feel overwhelmed? Story Now games of the PBtA type are probably not the game for you.

---

So if those are traits that your group possess, I would suggest you have a very frank thought on this yourself...and have a very honest interrogation with your players on the issue. If you/they can convince yourselves that (1) - (3) aren't ossified traits that can't be toggled off or made sufficiently malleable to enjoy themselves...have a go and enjoy!

But if those (1) to (3) traits are bedrock features of any/all of them and exposure to this kind of play is likely to trigger them rather than soften/change them, then you should stay away because the player in question is likely to have a bad time.

EDIT - On the bright side, I think the tendency to assume that these traits above overwhelm the playerbase and/or the players who possess them are incapable of becoming malleable/developing a toggle after exposure to new concepts is overblown. As a singular point of data, I've introduced (meaning "GMed games for") dozens of players (probably approaching 40) who are mostly of a trad orientation/past to these games in the last half-decade. Only two of them didn't enjoy themselves; one was trait (3) above and the other was trait (2). I think overwhelmingly the "trait (1) archetype" is a social construction (due to a deep history of play experience that "put and kept them on their back foot or passive" and they've just uploaded that software patch) and they are trivially the most capable of resolving this new paradigm of play while at the table.

 

[payn]

This is exactly my experience. It was exhausting and frustrating, to the point that I think I had a panic attack during one session.

Whoa!?

 

[GrahamWills]

Hey all -- quick note to say thanks for a lot of excellent comments and reflections on the system. It's been super-helpful to hear everyone's point of view and the consistent tone of being helpful and supportive has been ... well ... helpful and supportive! I've been in a few PbtA discussion threads, and this one has been the best, at least for me!

 

[Malmuria]

~ 1600ish hours worth of play.

What is your secret to scheduling? I think I manage about 4-5 gaming hours a month...