@Campbell is the poster on these boards who I think most clearly articulates the contrast between (i) BW and (ii) AW or DW that arises from the different roles that intention plays in action declaration and hence in the narration of consequences (especially failures). I tried to explain this in another recent post:I think BW is a bit meticulous for me, lol. Playing it would be interesting, but I think its not the game I would excel at GMing. PbtA games seem a bit more visceral and 'loose' in terms of how things can be worked out. Moves are more focused on the actions vs the motivations, at least in DW
To elaborate just a bit on the above: the framing principles are to frame into conflict by putting pressure on Beliefs; intent-and-task and consequence narration I think are already clear in this thread; and "say 'yes' or roll the dice" means that where there is on conflict then no dice are rolled - which is very different from the AW/DW principle of if you do it, you do it.One reason that Campbell has hesitancy about BW (and similar systems - Prince Valiant, and our indie-style 4e D&D probably both tick that "similarity" box) is that its resolution prioritises a player's goals for his/her PC (expressed via Beliefs) and his/her intention in action declaration
it does this via its general framing principles, its intent-and-task resolution, its approach to consequence narration on a failure (which draws on both the preceding features), and its principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Campbell's concern about this package is that it can elevate the conception of the character as a character over the purist fidelity to the fiction, both as established and its unfolding trajectory. And I think he's right. But I still love it, and prefer it, because of the thematic intensity I find in it. (And maybe it also fits better with my sentimentality.)
But I'm not sure that I see these features of BW as an issue of meticulousness. Can you elaborate?