Grade the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) System

[Neonchameleon]

The popularity of DnD and the number of professional nerds (IT, Sciences, Maths) playing the game would seem to challenge that notion

D&D makes it into a core needed skill. I'm pointing out that this is a choice.

 

[Aldarc]

View attachment 296699

These games are about storytelling and your attempts to say otherwise tell me you don't get what Im actually saying.

D&D is also referred to as a collaborate storytelling game in the 5e PHB. Is D&D 5e about storytelling or not?

When I say storytelling, I am not talking about telling prewritten stories, and if given that you still want to claim thats not what these games are, then sorry but you're wrong and no one anywhere that understands these games agrees with you.

People here who understand and regularly play these games disagree with you all the time, so what does that say? Probably that you know these games better than they do and they are just more of the same "toxic community" that you came here to drag through the mud, is that about right?

That is a significant distortion of history. Practically revisitionist to be frank. Apocalypse World spawned out of the Forge, which as a community had attempted to break down RPGs so they could be rebuilt to support what they believed was desirable out of them. Thats where the whole GNS malarkey came from and its why PBTA/FITD are all distinguishable from every other kind of RPG.

The issues they took up with other games had nothing to do with GMs telling stories and everything to do with them not liking how the systems in those other games worked and how they influenced what actually happened at a table.

It's not a significant distortion of history at all. The Forge was partially a reaction against GM force that was fairly prevalent in these games that they were playing and writting about in the '90s, particularly the Storyteller family of games.

But as noted, they didn't address this problem by going in and fixing the bad parts, they just threw them out. Which, to be fair, can be a valid design practice, but it isn't the only way it could have gone, and had the proverbial poster child of that movement not turned out to be a narcissistic moron accusing people of being brain damaged, perhaps it could have had more steam and lead to more developments.

But as it stands, PBTA is in more or less the same rut as the rest of the hobby is.

Also, this thread is not about your axe to grind with the Forge and Ron Edwards or an excuse for you to grind it out here. So it seems according to you that the primary crime that PbtA games have committed is guilt by association.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The players when they reminisce or otherwise recount or recall what happened. I haven't been referencing the concept of emergence because I think it makes me sound smart; emergence is vital for games that intend to support freeform playspaces, and you're not going to foster emergence by telling fixed stories. Stories need to emerge from play.

Emergent stories. I’ve found that PbtA and similar games deliver that all the time in my experience. There are a couple of versions that I think bring more specific “arcs” or what have you for the characters, but even then, I think the events of play can vary wildly from game to game.

All we’ve seen so far is assertion on your part. You’ve not done enough to try and convince me that my experience is wrong.

Quoting an article where a writer at CBR makes a reference to PbtA being shared storytelling doesn’t really cut the mustard.

Most of them don't. I would say all, but I can't claim to have actually read and played every single game out there. But I have read most of the ones people actually play, and Ive played and run most of those too.

What’s a game that you’ve played that you would say does it better?

 

[Indaarys]

All we’ve seen so far is assertion on your part. You’ve not done enough to try and convince me that my experience is wrong.

What makes you believe Im trying to convince you of something?

Quoting an article where a writer at CBR makes a reference to PbtA being shared storytelling doesn’t really cut the mustard.

You mean the quote correlating that PBTA are storytelling games in response to a completely different poster? That one that in no way even references any thing you've said in this topic?

I can tell you're very emotionally invested in these games, so let me ease your anxiety: I am not offending you by voicing my opinions. This isn't about you.

 

[Indaarys]

D&D is also referred to as a collaborate storytelling game in the 5e PHB. Is D&D 5e about storytelling or not?

No one said it wasn't.

People here who understand and regularly play these games disagree with you all the time, so what does that say? Probably that you know these games better than they do and they are just more of the same "toxic community" that you came here to drag through the mud, is that about right?

Idk how to tell you that its very obvious you're going out of your way to disagree with me, and that it has reached a point where you're doubling down on verifiable nonsense.

I already pointed out that you're confusing what I mean by storytelling, and you've decided to embrace that bit of cognitive dissonance rather than address it.

It's not a significant distortion of history at all. The Forge was partially a reaction against GM force that was fairly prevalent in these games that they were playing and writting about in the '90s, particularly the Storyteller family of games

Ah, yes, moving the goal posts to "partially". Hilarious.

this thread is not about your axe to grind with the Forge and Ron Edwards or an excuse for you to grind it out here. So it seems according to you that the primary crime that PbtA games have committed is guilt by association

Imagine unironically defending Ron Edwards. You've gone off the deep end.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What makes you believe Im trying to convince you of something?

Oh not me specifically. But I assume you’re stating your opinions for a reason.

I don’t think you’ve done a good job of backing up your claims.

You mean the quote correlating that PBTA are storytelling games in response to a completely different poster? That one that in no way even references any thing you've said in this topic?

Yes, that quote doesn’t really do much to support the claims you’re making.

You don’t like PbtA. That’s fine. I think you’re wrong about nearly everything you’ve said about it.

I can tell you're very emotionally invested in these games, so let me ease your anxiety: I am not offending you by voicing my opinions. This isn't about you.

No of course not… it’s about you, obviously.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

PbtA is great, but it rests entirely on how well the Moves have been written, which changes from game to game. As already well established, you cannot say 'just play a PbtA game', you need to give specific titles, as there is so much trash PbtA games out there that just miss the point entirely (relatedly, avoid Dungeon World).

And then, whatever title you pick, its genre/mood/expectations need to match those of the table, as a vampire game where you can be socially smooth with 5 different social Moves is vastly different from one where your only social Move is DOMINATE. PbtA is not a generic package to run kitchen sinks in - to make use of its strengths there needs to be a clear focus on what you're supposed to be doing (that fits into preferrably 7-ish core moves).

I love that it exists. It was a great leap ahead in RPG design, being simultaneously rules-y (every roll-worthy action can be its own sub-system) but light (you don't really need to know more than your stats + see the names of the basic moves) but very hackable (just remove/add to moves, make up new ones to cover a specific action your group keeps doing, change the dice being rolled, etc)... But while I have played in multiple PbtA games, I haven't yet run into one that I'd love.

 

[Indaarys]

Oh not me specifically. But I assume you’re stating your opinions for a reason.

...what do you think the purpose of this topic is, precisely?

Yes, that quote doesn’t really do much to support the claims you’re making.

So either you're also being a contrarian and disagreeing with me on principle or you somehow are also completely confused by what I mean by storytelling.

Lets try this: what, precisely, do you think Ive said in this topic?

No of course not… it’s about you, obviously.

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.

 

[pemerton]

following a prepared story certainly makes it easier for those that struggle with it

Sure.

But at least on these boards, most of those whom I see criticising Apocalypse World also assert that their games are not railroads!

These games are about storytelling and your attempts to say otherwise tell me you don't get what Im actually saying.

When I say storytelling, I am not talking about telling prewritten stories

<snip>

Apocalypse World spawned out of the Forge, which as a community had attempted to break down RPGs so they could be rebuilt to support what they believed was desirable out of them.

<snip>

The issues they took up with other games had nothing to do with GMs telling stories and everything to do with them not liking how the systems in those other games worked and how they influenced what actually happened at a table.

Prompted by this and some of the replies, I thought I'd just mention a few things, and leave it at that:

From p 288 of the AW rulebook:

The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards.​

From the essay "Narrativism: Story Now":

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. . . .

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). . . .

It all comes down to this: a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character. . . .

in playing in (say) a Werewolf game following the published metaplot, the players are intended to be ignorant of the changes in the setting, and to encounter them only through play. The more they participate in these changes (e.g. ferrying a crucial message from one NPC to another), the less they provide theme-based resolution to Premise, not more. . . . In designing a Setting-heavy Narrativist rules-set, I strongly suggest . . . full-disclosure . . . and abandoning the metaplot "revelation" approach immediately.​

So Apocalypse World is intended to produce RPGing in which the players, in the play of their PCs, are obliged to make thematically-laden choices. Although there's a lot of subtlety in its design (see eg Baker's discussion of the structure of the Seduce/Manipulate player-side move on p 284 of the rulebook), the core of the system is straightforward:

*The GM makes a soft move. These all take their orientation from what the players want for their PCs, because they are about badness, opportunities, being put in a spot, etc;

*The players respond by declaring actions for their PCs - if no player-side move is triggered, the GM continues with another move;

*Eventually, a player-side move will be triggered, and either (i) the player will get what they want for their PC (success on Seize By Force or Seduce/Manipulate; success plus the appropriate GM decision on Go Aggro), or (ii) the GM makes another soft move, or (iii) the GM makes a move that is as hard and direct as they like, such that the player irrevocably loses something they wanted for their PC.​

So the system pushes the players towards either violence or seduction/manipulation to get what they want for their PCs, at which point either the action continues to rise, or some sort of crisis or resolution occurs. By choosing when, against whom, and for what they force the issue, the players express their thematic choices. The game doesn't ask or require the GM to judge those choices; it just requires the GM to follow through with a move that makes sense, and to withhold irrevocability unless entitled to make as hard and direct a move as they like.

No storytelling is required: the players play their PCs, the GM plays "the world". But a story that has something to say about the brutality of the post-apocalyptic world will result. (@Neonchameleon gave some nice examples upthread.)

 

[pemerton]

PbtA is great, but it rests entirely on how well the Moves have been written

Absolutely.

A game which is just players declare actions, GM makes a soft move, players declare more actions, GM makes another soft move, etc, would be pretty aimless. So the GM moves have to be designed to push the players towards the player-side moves; and the player-side moves have to be designed to take the input of the GM moves and render it into crisis and resolution that fit the overall tone and theme of the game.

My own view is that the first RPG to exemplify a version of this design is Classic Traveller (1977), although it's a bit fitful and a bit patchwork. Reading and re-reading Apocalypse World was what enabled me to run a successful, and really enjoyable, Classic Traveller campaign.