Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7780319" data-attributes="member: 57112">Oh, I'm aware. I'm just giving some context; I know that prior to WotC getting its mitts on D&amp;D &quot;rulings not rules&quot; was a much more common practice; I just had much less experience those editions at the actual tabletop.This is something TSR D&amp;D did quite well, and something 5e tries, but doesn't succeed quite as well at.This is a fundamental misreading of PbtA, unless there are some specific off-shoots I'm not thinking about that handle things a little differently (to be fair, this does include Blades in the Dark, but then BitD doesn't have moves so it can't be what you're talking about). Every PbtA rule-set I've read (including the ones I've mentioned, as well as Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, and Monster of the Week) all clarify from the start that nothing takes primacy over the fiction. Yes, it all ties back to a small set of universal moves (which are akin to basic actions) and playbook moves (which are more akin to class abilities); but these moves are much broader and encompassing than anything found in 3.0+ D&amp;D. Once again, most actions are probably covered by one of the basic moves, and those that aren't are usually handled by a catch-all move (again, this is usually act under pressure.) In general, if an action isn't covered by a move, not even the standard &quot;catch-all&quot;, it isn't because your character just can't do it, but it's because the action doesn't need a roll to determine its success. This is because PbtA does not have a vastly more limited proposition filter than D&amp;D, at least not modern D&amp;D. To be clear, I've never told a player &quot;they can't do that&quot; because of what is and is not on their character sheet, but prior to our experience with PbtA my players struggled to be more creative with how they played their characters, and I struggled in how to encourage that creativity.</blockquote>[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7780319, member: 57112"] Oh, I'm aware. I'm just giving some context; I know that prior to WotC getting its mitts on D&D "rulings not rules" was a much more common practice; I just had much less experience those editions at the actual tabletop. This is something TSR D&D did quite well, and something 5e tries, but doesn't succeed quite as well at. This is a fundamental misreading of PbtA, unless there are some specific off-shoots I'm not thinking about that handle things a little differently (to be fair, this does include [I]Blades in the Dark,[/I] but then BitD doesn't have moves so it can't be what you're talking about). Every PbtA rule-set I've read (including the ones I've mentioned, as well as [I]Apocalypse World,[/I] [I]Monsterhearts[/I], and [I]Monster of the Week[/I]) all clarify from the start that nothing takes primacy over [I]the fiction.[/I] Yes, it all ties back to a small set of universal moves (which are akin to basic actions) and playbook moves (which are more akin to class abilities); but these moves are [B][I]much[/I][/B] broader and encompassing than anything found in 3.0+ D&D. Once again, most actions are probably covered by one of the basic moves, and those that aren't are usually handled by a catch-all move (again, this is usually [B]act under pressure.[/B]) In general, if an action isn't covered by a move, not even the standard "catch-all", it isn't because your character just can't do it, but it's because the action doesn't need a roll to determine its success. This is because PbtA does [I]not[/I] have a vastly more limited proposition filter than D&D, at least not modern D&D. To be clear, I've never told a player "they can't do that" because of what is and is not on their character sheet, but prior to our experience with PbtA my players struggled to be more creative with how they played their characters, and I struggled in how to encourage that creativity.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Verification