Grade the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) System

[pemerton]

I'd go so far as to say that I do not see why PbtA games should be more than two or so pages, Just define how to interpret the 2d6 result, specify the moves for players and GMs, and leave it at that. If you already know how these games work, it should not take more.

Well, this is mostly what Apocalypse World is: the basic moves; the GM agenda, principles and moves; the rules for first session and preparing fronts and threats; the playbooks; the gear list; and lots of commentary.

 

[Aldarc]

I found that the only real problem with DW is D&D players! They THINK they understand what they're doing, and its worst if one is the GM! Unless the person is also versed in narrativist play, they're going to basically jam the game into the mold of a sort of D&D Basic and lose the whole point. If I start out with 5 naive players who have never run or played D&D then DW works fine. AW is ALMOST the same game, with some differences in thematics, but because it LOOKS different from D&D it is far more likely to lead to participants escaping their preconceived notions and playing it well. I assume the same goes for other PbtAs, though the only other ones I have any real familiarity with are Stonetop, and Ironsworn. I think Stonetop MIGHT run into the 'DW problem' a bit too, as it is really not thematically very distant, but maybe not. The quite different playbooks would help there.

Honestly though, as an aside, I think Stonetop's playbooks need some work still. I guess it is not a finalized design yet, so hopefully they'll revamp some things a bit.

I have had similar experiences in this regard as well. Not only with DW or PbtA but also with games like Fate and Cortex.

When I played these games with people who were new to TTRPGs or those who have played games outside of D&D, they didn't really struggle with these games at all. In a fair number of cases, I actually found that new players (including my partner!) expressed that they had a much easier time with Dungeon World than D&D 5e. The same was true for my previous gaming group in Austria.

In contrast, the players who have seemed to struggle the most with these games are the ones who come immersed in D&D style games and expect that these games will play the same. I don't fault the players or D&D for this. It's really about the calcification of habits and expectations that can make it difficult to adapt.

I imagine that if I played only Poker style games and that formed the entirety of my conception of card games, for example, and then I would potentially find it difficult to adjust to a trick-taking card game like Bridge, Whist, or Skat. Or it would be as if I moved from a lifetime of Checkers to Chess and then expressed my frustration that Chess pieces had set moves they could make or that I couldn't double-jump my pieces.

I confess this was very likely the reason why I had such a difficult time understanding Fate when I first encountered it. I was looking at the game from the expectations formed from fifteen years of D&D. But afterwards, I had a much easier time understanding games outside of D&D, including Dungeon World.

 

[Manbearcat]

No, I understood that, but these are the exact same rules the DM can use for everything else, so the basilisk is not really any different from anything else. It is a set of 4 or so moves that flavors a little bit as a basilisk one time, and as an ankheg the next time, but ultimately it makes next to no difference which monster name the DM picks for the flavor.

To me this approach just lacks something, call it what you want, crunch, being grounded, an appearance of there being more than just whatever the group makes up on the fly. You can argue that in other games stuff is also just made up and I agree, but to me PbtA removes the fourth wall and exposes this in a way that traditional games do not.

I'd go so far as to say that I do not see why PbtA games should be more than two or so pages, Just define how to interpret the 2d6 result, specify the moves for players and GMs, and leave it at that. If you already know how these games work, it should not take more.

So here is Vincent Baker’s infamous (and brilliant) article on Concentric (and collapsible) Design.

Here is a post I wrote contrasting the ultra-lite (layer 1 of AW with some minor mods) Harper’s Lasers & Feelings vs the density of a layers 1-4 AW or DW or Stonetop game.

Sum: the difference in the play between the sort of “AW layer 1” game vs a 3 or a 4 is profound.

Personal opinion: While a layer 1 game is “a complete game,” I’m not a fan of the play.

 

[mamba]

Personal opinion: While a layer 1 game is “a complete game,” I’m not a fan of the play.

I had read the article a while ago, I like the collapsible design idea.

What I mentioned as fitting on a few pages is all of layer 1, most of layer 2, and some of layer 3.

I assume what layer 1 play feels like to you is how I feel about PbtA play in general compared to a traditional TTRPG.

Maybe that has to do with the collapsible design and layer 1 being just too flimsy to build enough structure back onto it in the other layers (without burying it completely and having, say, layer 3 as a completely new foundation), so the flimsiness of layer 1 always shines through for me.

Maybe Monster of the Week or Stonetop would get to the point where it is more. People keep bringing them up here, but I am not familiar with either.

 

[aramis erak]

The point of "if you do it, you do it" is to contrast with "say 'yes' or roll the dice", which is the key principle of Baker's earlier famous and influential game DitV.

It's a great concept, but crappy presentation that, from what I've seen, requires better explanation than was in AW (which was pretty slim).
It's also a concept that is not always acceptable... as it has a rather nasty gatekeeping effect on some individuals.

 

[pemerton]

It's a great concept, but crappy presentation that, from what I've seen, requires better explanation than was in AW (which was pretty slim).

All I can say is that it was immediately clear to me when I read it in AW and DW.

It's also a concept that is not always acceptable... as it has a rather nasty gatekeeping effect on some individuals.

I don't know exactly what or who you have in mind, but I guess if a person isn't able to apply or follow a rule for whatever reason, then they'll pass on that game.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

On "writers' room", I think this blog from John Harper gives pretty good advice: The Mighty Atom

(Spoiler: he's against it.)

As an aside, I'd say his "line" is still very much closer to what people traditionally call Writer's Room - at least it is nowadays. In Blades in the Dark, there is no guidance for the GM to bring up troubles with the PCs' Vices/Trauma. It really needed better writing around this but watching his Actual Plays and This Video - he describes the role of the Player as being a GM of their characters, saying he was going to write that into the text. But even what is actually written in the book has the players playing the PCs as stolen cars, which is definitely not an Actor Stance. But this goes into how "The Line" is VERY subjective. I think everyone is fine with metagaming (not being in the Actor Stance) to make sure their character sticks with the party (assuming the game is about that) and they don't cross people's Lines & Veils (or you end up in an rpg horror story probably). I found some think Masks' Conditions cross the Line, but for me, its perfectly okay. But for me, FitD games definitely cross the line when its up to the Player to basically come up with the trouble of their PC.

Its really the other reason I found Forged in the Dark (after the loss of Basic and GM Moves) to be a much worse experience at my tables than PbtA. It just so happens that the theme and genre of BitD and especially Scum & Villainy hit on my absolute favorite - love me some Cowboy Bebop and Firefly. So S&V remains my favorite game even though I am disappointed by the execution - not traditional GM Role, lots of creative burden to basically do game design on the spot creating moves for every Action Roll. But plenty to love in its design - clocks remain my go-to tool.

Unfortunately, no traditional PbtA really replicated these well enough. I found too many try to be "The Sci Fi" game that can handle any type of crew from Mass Effect to Firefly to Star Trek. Which is just plain silly and means your Basic Moves are generic and not fitting any of these genres.

 

[Faolyn]

Speaking of PbtA games--specifically Ironsworn. I know this isn't a "help me understand this" thread but... help me understand this, because I am having a total block. And I've heard it's an awesome game so I want to give it a try, but I can't get past page 13.

OK, you roll d6 action die + some stuff, and also 2d10 and try to roll under the total of action die + stuff. Weird, but OK. Since this game doesn't require a GM to set target numbers, and this game doesn't do the "On a 10+, yadda yadda" that other PbtA games have, you need rules to deal with that.

But then, under the momentum section, if you have negative momentum, you must cancel your action die if it matches what's on your die. The rules then say "You still check the success of your move by comparing your stat plus your adds to the challenge dice, but you won’t have your action die to help you." And that's where my brain stops working, because (a) how does your action die help you--it seems like it just provides a target number for you--and (b) without the action die, how do you determine if you've succeeded on a roll or not?

I feel like the answer is staring me in the face and I just can't see it.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

@Faolyn This is from memory, but, instead of comparing the action die plus stat plus adds to the challenge dice, just compare the stat plus adds to the challenge dice.

ETA: the challenge dice set the target numbers. The action die is rolled against the numbers on the challenge dice. Basically, without the action die, you're probably only going to beat very low numbers on the challenge dice.

 

[Xamnam]

Speaking of PbtA games--specifically Ironsworn. I know this isn't a "help me understand this" thread but... help me understand this, because I am having a total block. And I've heard it's an awesome game so I want to give it a try, but I can't get past page 13.

OK, you roll d6 action die + some stuff, and also 2d10 and try to roll under the total of action die + stuff. Weird, but OK. Since this game doesn't require a GM to set target numbers, and this game doesn't do the "On a 10+, yadda yadda" that other PbtA games have, you need rules to deal with that.

But then, under the momentum section, if you have negative momentum, you must cancel your action die if it matches what's on your die. The rules then say "You still check the success of your move by comparing your stat plus your adds to the challenge dice, but you won’t have your action die to help you." And that's where my brain stops working, because (a) how does your action die help you--it seems like it just provides a target number for you--and (b) without the action die, how do you determine if you've succeeded on a roll or not?

I feel like the answer is staring me in the face and I just can't see it.

This is from Starforged, so the language might be a bit different, but I do feel like the imagery is a nice and clear distillation of the mechanic.