Grade the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) System

[aramis erak]

The closest I've gotten to playing/running PBTA is Sentinel Comics. I like SC. A lot. but it does a number of things most other PBTA/AWE line games don't: difficulties, character building (rather than playbooks), use of most of a full set of polyhedrals... and strong GM¹.

I don't really care for anything outside the middle half of the spectrum of GM authority¹, and PBTA is usually just at the edge, so the rules make me uncomfortable as written.

I don't mind much all rolls being player facing, but I prefer the GM to have some rolling to make, even if it's not action successes. (I had a blast running Talisman Adventures. GM rolls damage for the NPCs, and rolls for encounters...

Many of the AWE/PBTA games settings to not appeal to me. AW itself, as written, has enough stuff I don't want to cope with built into the playbooks that I find it unpalatable to the point of {personally} unplayable. Several others are just not interesting. The few I have found interesting are divergent on the resolution methods (but still 3 result). I do want to try Starforged and/or Ironforged.



¹: games with GM roles can be graded on a scale for what level of authority and plot power is expected in the rules as written. AD&D 1 is very strong; PBTA as written appears to be weak...

 

[Aldarc]

Not every game works well for a given system. It's true for 5e, BRP, Fate, Forged in the Dark, or whatever happens to be the flavor of the month game. It's also true for Powered by the Apocalypse, which is arguably more of an approach to design than a system. When you have designers who understands the strengths and weaknesses of PbtA, they can make their PbtA game just sing.

Things that I generally like about PbtA games:

• playbooks are easy for most new players
• play to find out what happen
• GM doesn't roll - so no fudging!
• lighter on GM prep as a necessity
• the play agenda, principles, and guidelines that PbtA games provide GMs: these often hew pretty close to my own preferences
• player characters' dramatic needs often drive play
• fiction first gameplay
• players have trigger moves by doing things in the fiction

These are off the top of my head. There is likely more.

 

[piou]

GM doesn't roll - so no fudging!

More than "no fudging" being good, I think important to say that PbtA games generally provide an environment where fudging is not necessary. There are games where fudging is possible and sometimes desirable since they sometimes create situations where the dice take away from the ability of the GM to regulate the flow of play, but PbtA games are built in a way that generally avoids that.

 

[piou]

I feel the four moves of FATE are easier and more intuitive

It's worth noting that the 4 FATE actions are really different in their philosophy. In FATE, if you're trying to do something where "an interesting opposition" (sic) is present, then you need to roll the dice, and to roll the dice you have to choose one of the 4 actions. You're essentially saying "I'd like to do something, I think I should roll the dice for that, what box does it fit in?". There's nothing wrong with that approach, but it's very different from a PbtA.

In PbtA games, the interaction is reversed. First your character does the thing in the fiction, you need to describe what the character does ("I sneak behind the guard to hide behind the chest."). This can trigger a mechanical result: a move ("When hiding in shadows roll 2d6…"). If it does it generates an outcome that is then reflected in how the world reacts to the action ("5, it's a miss, as you walk behind the guard your dagger catches on his cloth and he turns arround suprised. There is a long second where you look at each other in disbelief, but you know it is only fleeting. What do you do?").

In this case the specific way you describe your action informs whether a move is triggered and what move is triggered in this case. You're not trying to fit actions within a box, if no move is triggered by your action then no dice are rolled and the result flows from fiction alone. ("I sneak behind the guard –You realize that there is no shadow here, your Hide in Shadows move won't activate, right?" "Yeah, that's ok." "As you walk behind the guard, he notices your shadow and turns arround, surprised to see you here."). (I'm sure most games would have a way to sneak without shadow, this is for the sake of example). That's a bit of a different dynamics.

Is it better than FATE actions? I like putting fiction first, I like the "you have to do it to do it" principle, and this flows well with the failing forward principle. On the other hand the GM generally makes the determination of what move is triggered by the fiction, and sometimes that can surprise players: "Alright, this is a Volley move, roll for it –Really? I thought it would be called shot.". The bad side of this is that it can lead to some frustration to fit your description to the move you want to enable. But on the other hand such negociations only happen if there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the fictional situation between the GM and player, and identifying and fixing that misunderstanding is a really good thing IMHO. At the end of the day, what matters to me is the story we build together, and that makes it all the more important that fiction remains the driving element.

Ok, but for real, is it better than FATE actions? I don't know. It's different that's certain, and different enough that the comparison isn't clear cut IMHO.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I am not a fan of basically everything those kinds of games are trying to do.

They try way too hard to tell stories and get in their own way.

I also don't care for their communities on the whole, nor the fact that they're commonly held up as being "easier" to run when they lean on the same things its evangelizers criticize 5e for doing.

OK. As at least two of those things are straight up wrong I'm going to ask you straight up whether you've ever played or even read Apocalypse World or whether you're just talking about "those kinds of games"?

 

[Emberashh]

OK. As at least two of those things are straight up wrong I'm going to ask you straight up whether you've ever played or even read Apocalypse World or whether you're just talking about "those kinds of games"?

Ah yes, the expected "you just don't get it" rationalization.

Don't assume peoples opinions come from a place of misunderstanding or lack of experience.

If anything I've played more of these kinds of games than you have, so lets not try to skirt around the argument with chest thumping.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah yes, the expected "you just don't get it" rationalization.

Don't assume peoples opinions come from a place of misunderstanding or lack of experience.

If anything I've played more of these kinds of games than you have, so lets not try to skirt around the argument with chest thumping.

I notice you didn't answer the question and instead ducked by talking about "these kinds of games".

As I say two of the things you said ("They try way too hard to tell stories and get in their own way." and "they lean on the same things its evangelizers criticize 5e for doing") are straight up unequivocally false when we are talking about Apocalypse World and the better PbtA hacks in specific. If you're talking about 90s and 00s attempts at narrative games you are probably correct - which is why I asked whether you had played or even read Apocalypse World.

As your response is a hyper-defensive refusal to answer the question and simply lashing out I can only assume that the answer is no.

 

[Nikosandros]

I've only read AW and Dungeon World, while I played The Sprawl for a single adventure (and I didn't like it). I've had a better experience with Ironsworn, but I think that it is too far removed to be considered a "proper" PbtA.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

I'll second that calling it a system tends to do PbtA games a disservice. People think that the single one they tried applies to them all. But I've found the differences between Masks, Bluebeard's Bride and Apocalypse World 2e as bigger than many traditional systems. And there is an abundance of bad PbtA games. Its really best just to discuss them on their own merits but I'd do the same for many d20 games too. That said, they do have similar characteristics: Hard Choices, Snowballing action, Structured GM Frameworks, "Just-in-time" Mechanics that get you immediately back into the fiction and Genre Emulation.

Many games seem to recommend keeping the action moving forward but often it boils down to just some general advice about failing forward. PbtA games tend to actually provide the table with support on what happens on a Miss, Weak Hit and Strong Hit. IMO Its the biggest loss when playing FitD games for me - suddenly its on the GM's shoulders to constantly make these interesting consequences. And there has been some trend of PbtA games following this - Day/Night Moves from The Between/Brindlewood, Rely on your Skills and Training in Avatar Legends, Bay or Defy Danger from Ironsworn. It does allow tons more flexibility, but I think that is going against the core strength of PbtA with niche genre emulation and already those hard choices and snowballing built into the mechanics.

That said, all of those are some of my favorite games but I prefer something like Root: The RPG that provides more support where it doesn't rely too heavily on GM fiat for catch-all moves. Implementing a skill system is really genius. Its easily my favorite way to play low magic fantasy now.

 

[Emberashh]

I notice you didn't answer the question and instead ducked by talking about "these kinds of games".

As I say two of the things you said ("They try way too hard to tell stories and get in their own way." and "they lean on the same things its evangelizers criticize 5e for doing") are straight up unequivocally false when we are talking about Apocalypse World and the better PbtA hacks in specific. If you're talking about 90s and 00s attempts at narrative games you are probably correct - which is why I asked whether you had played or even read Apocalypse World.

As your response is a hyper-defensive refusal to answer the question and simply lashing out I can only assume that the answer is no.

And here is a prime example of the following:

I also don't care for their communities on the whole

Irony is accusing me of being hyper defensive when you've doubled down on ad hominem attacks in response to some mild criticisms. And, for that matter, doubled down on the same tired "you just don't get it" rhetoric that assumes I haven't read or played a game you are, apparently, far too emotionally invested in.