Grade the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) System

[Carnun]

PbtA has absolutely spoiled me. It just does a lot of what I want a game to do.
When it first came out, I admit it took me a minute to grasp it. It was so radically different than anything I've ever played. The whole fiction-first approach and player-facing rolls was absolutely wild to me. But once I grokked it, there's just no going back. I'll play trad games like DnD 5E, but I won't run anything that isn't player-facing, and I'm more often the GM/MC. I love it for all the reasons others have cited; success bands, player-facing rolls, playbooks, etc.

 

[MGibster]

I voted "It's alright I guess." I've only played one campaign using the rules, Apocalypse World I think, and I prefer more traditional role playing games. When judging how good a game is I go by what I think the authors' are trying to accomplish rather than how much I personally like it. I don't really care for the rules that much and prefer more traditional setups with a powerful DM. I'll play the game but I'll never run it.

 

[pemerton]

Also at the end of the day, I feel like Forged in the Dark does most of the things PbtA does, but does them better. To be fair, Blade in the Dark came later and I think the designers of that almost certainly had played and took ideas from PbtA.

John Harper is cited in the (original) Apolcalypse World rulebook (I don't know about 2e). And he has excellent online commentary - see eg this one on soft and hard move: The Mighty Atom

There's little assistance for a GM to figure out if they're doing a "hard" or "soft" move. So it's sort of like getting a monster book and not being told if the damage should be 1d4 or 2d20+15.

This seems wrong to me. Apocalypse World is clear on when to make as hard and direct a move as you like - when a 6- comes up on the dice, or when you're handed a golden opportunity on a plate by a player's action declaration (ie they proceed in disregard of an earlier soft move).

And a hard move is something that is irrevocable.

**************

Anyway, there are a few RPG books that have taught me more than all the others I've read:

Robin Laws's HeroWars and HeroQuest revised;

Luke Crane's Burning Wheel and Adventure Burner;

Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World.​

For insight, and for clarity, they can't be beaten.

 

[aramis erak]

This seems wrong to me. Apocalypse World is clear on when to make as hard and direct a move as you like - when a 6- comes up on the dice, or when you're handed a golden opportunity on a plate by a player's action declaration (ie they proceed in disregard of an earlier soft move).

And a hard move is something that is irrevocable.

I found AW itself amongst the most opaque writing I've encountered in the hundreds of games I've read. Nothing was clear about it other than the genre.

And not in the way Tha'5 is unclear - that's a case where the author assume a knowledge of the NY rap scene.

 

[Vael]

• I found the games notably harder to hack than traditional games, since you need to make sure that any new move fits with the existing ones and doesn't break the flow

This is the big one for me. I think as long as it runs right out of the box/book, everything is fine. But I cannot grok how to alter or brew for it at all, if something feels off or isn't quite working, I have no idea how to fix it.

I also find that the best thing as a player to do is to pick a playbook first, and then make a character ... the other way round feels often like trying to jam square pegs into round holes.

I found Masks an ill fit, but Monster of the Week was a fun one-shot. I legit want to try Thirsty Sword Lesbians and Blades in the Dark (stole the clock mechanic, will use it in any system I find it works in).

So while I'll complain that FATE is too loosey-goosey sometimes, I at least get it. PbtA feels opaque to me, like a black box of an RPG system.

 

[overgeeked]

I’m a sucker for d6s and rules light games so I absolutely love most of the PbtA games I’ve played. Some are better implemented than others. Spirit of ’77, Masks, Thirsty Sword Lesbians, Monster of the Week, and Cartel are some of my favorites. Hard and soft moves are super easy to use and the referee advice is almost always top notch. I love the principles and agenda setup. Monster of the Week has some of the best monster-mystery design advice I’ve ever seen. The way results can snowball is just a thing of beauty.

I am not a fan of how awkwardly most designers insist on writing things like moves. “To do it, do it” is the least helpful bit of text imaginable. Switching to a more traditional presentation of actions would likely get a lot more people to grok these games. I’m also not really a fan of picking most of your character’s narrative arc at character creation. I prefer those things to be organic rather than a track to follow.

Still. Absolutely wonderful family of games. There should maybe be an SRD in the offing for Apocalypse World. A-.

 

[pemerton]

“To do it, do it” is the least helpful bit of text imaginable.

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.

 

[Aldarc]

I am not a fan of how awkwardly most designers insist on writing things like moves. “To do it, do it” is the least helpful bit of text imaginable. Switching to a more traditional presentation of actions would likely get a lot more people to grok these games.

I don't mind "to do it, do it," but it's not clear without further explanation. "To do it, do it" is admittedly much pithier and catchier than "If you want to trigger a move for your character, your character has to do the thing that triggers it."

I will say, however, that a lot more recent PbtA games (and their kin) IMHO do a much better job at explaining the core game ideas for new players: see Magpie Games, Stonetop, Ironsworn, etc. Some of these games move away from the exact wording or at least bury these ideas in more cogent explanations.

I’m also not really a fan of picking most of your character’s narrative arc at character creation. I prefer those things to be organic rather than a track to follow.

This really depends on the game of PbtA. With some PbtA games, yeah you are picking your character's arc. I agree. I generally dislike this since that can feel a bit too prescriptive.

I am also not a fan of how setting specific some playbooks can be. In some games, you are not picking somthing like a Warrior with the playbook, but, instead, the closest thing to a warrior may be the Toxic Trash Avenger of St. Mitch playbook. I understand that this leans heavily into the setting and a boon for some, but it can be a line too far for me. It really depends. Thankfully for me this is definitely not universal among PbtA games.

I found the games notably harder to hack than traditional games, since you need to make sure that any new move fits with the existing ones and doesn't break the flow

I definitely agree with this, but I also understand that this may be a personal thing. There are clearly plenty of people out there who are hacking the game to create new PbtA games or new playbooks. However, I have had some difficulty with coming up with new playbooks for different archetypes for Dungeon World or even Stonetop (e.g., an Iron Age magical artificer/smith). So I have personally chalked this up to shortcomings in my own personal understandings of the game and put some of those hacking efforts on temporary hiatus until my grasp of the game improves at the design level.

 

[Committed Hero]

I have played Monster of the Week and read a few other titles. I disliked the feeling that my character's activities were pigeonholed into the list of things that the rules anticipated you would do. At times I thought I could have been playing Eldritch Horror.

Tongue slightly in cheek, I think any PbtA fans who have denigrated systems with character classes owes them an apology.

 

[Aldarc]

I have played Monster of the Week and read a few other titles. I disliked the feeling that my character's activities were pigeonholed into the list of things that the rules anticipated you would do. At times I thought I could have been playing Eldritch Horror.

I don't think that your activities are pidgeonholed into these things; instead, these are the particular activities that trigger moves.

I do agree that sometimes the list of things in a move, for example, that a character can ask the GM in something analogous to a lore or perception check may seem limiting at first glance, but I think that the idea here is not about anticipating what you would do, but, rather, they are about coming up with things that are meant to create new fiction.

Tongue slightly in cheek, I think any PbtA fans who have denigrated systems with character classes owes them an apology.

This really depends on the PbtA game for me. Some PbtA games build their playbooks like classes. But there are some games out there where the playbooks feel less like classes. Playbooks in Dungeon World, for example, feel very different from the sort of playbooks in games like Masks or Avatar Legends, the latter ones are far more broad-strokes about the sort of issues you want your character to face in the game.