No, I’m not confused. I don’t think that PbtA games are “writers rooms” or that they “generate stories in the third person, and do so by deliberately dissociating mechanics from how those stories proceed”.
Only in the sense that this topic exists to invite people to give their opinions on a given family of games. Which I have.
You and the other person responded by getting highly offended and spouting off about not being convinced by me, when I frankly do not give a flying naughty word about whether or not I convince you if anything. This isn't about you.
You clearly don't care for my opinion and despite your claims about supporting my opinions you haven't actually practiced that demand you have of me (all you've done thus far is just complain about me), so clearly you're not really even interested in talking to me at all.
So all I can say to you is get over it and disengage if you don't actually have anything to say.
I’m not offended by what you’ve said. I just think it’s misplaced, poorly explained, and inaccurate. Based on the poll results, there are many folks who’ve looked at this thread who’ve not yet played PbtA games. I’d hate for your comments to influence those folks.
Forgive me if you know how the game works already, but the Ankheg (or any other monster or NPC) doesn’t get an actual turn in Dungeon World or similar games. Instead, when the game calls for a move by the GM, they can use a monster move as their move.
A GM makes a move when the players look to him for what happens next, hand him a golden opportunity, or when the players’ dive call for a roll. The GM never rolls.
So if I’m a Fighter and I attack the Ankheg and roll poorly, I deal no damage and maybe it spits acid on me. That probably inflicts damage, but maybe it also leaves my sword covered in acid. Do I toss it aside and draw another weapon? Do I try to get the acid off before the sword is damaged or destroyed?
The monster moves are not specifically defined to give the GM the freedom to use the moves in different ways. It is a bit of a learning curve, but once you get used to it, it really allows for dynamic play.
but then the Rank in Ironsworn does much the same thing. Ironsworn and Dungeon World have rules for resolving combat too. They're just not variants on D&D's take turns, in initiative order, to roll to hit, roll for damage, ablate hp until one is at zero.
as I said, I can do so myself too, there is no requirement to buy such books.
The weakness to me is that ultimately all monsters are basically the same. The Ankheg burrows and bursts forth, the next guy hangs from the ceiling and sweeps down, the third ambushes you around a dark corner, but in the game this is all 'showing signs of an impending threat', there just is nothing to it. You might as well save the page space and not include any at all.
The weakness to me is that ultimately all monsters are basically the same. The Ankheg burrows and bursts forth, the next guy hangs from the ceiling and sweeps down, the third ambushes you around a dark corner
This seems like saying that smoke coming from the cone of a volcano, and the beacons of Gondor being lit as the Orc army looms on the border, are basically the same because both are signs of an impending threat (an eruption, and the invasion of Gondor by Orcs, respectively).
Apocalypse World, at its most basic, is like any other RPG: the GM describes a situation, the players declare actions for their PCs, and the rules are applied to work out what happens as a result.
The game's particular structure, that I described upthread, means that play will generate a story of somewhat brutal conflict in a post-apocalyptic world. But no one has to write that story - the rules take care of that. There is no "writers' room" to it - that is, no people sitting around collectively deciding on a sequence of events that will constitute a satisfying story. Nor is there any particular third personality to it - the most canonical GM refrain is second person, namely, "What do you do?"
No, that’s really not the case. Plenty of other folks in this very thread have told you that they disagree.
I agree that there are people out there who describe PbtA and similar games along those lines. But I don’t think those people are correct. I think they’re either under informed, or they have a bias. Or more charitably, they may not know how to more accurately articulate the differences between PbtA style play and more traditional play.