Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8245128" data-attributes="member: 6779310">The is one of the reasons I didn't buy it.I can understand why he would use it in that work, but disagree that he should have. I have borrowed and read it; I had trouble extracting the concepts through the language, and had to ask Luke Crane for an explanation in English of "To do it, do it." Which, while not as catchy, can be more easily explained, "To get to roll the move, narrate the action." Which seems self-evident to many, but is a conceptual leap that wasn't obvious in AW itself for a subset of readers.I'll also note that Fiction First and difficulties are not mutually exclusive. Sentinel Comics, for example, has standard modifiers for the moves that shift the die used or require a complication to attempt. (EG: doing a basic  hinder against multiple targets: either drop from mid to low die, or take some other complication.) It's a subtle effect, but the ability of the GM to shift which die for a player attempting something a little odd is why Sentinel Comics works for me. One thing that is key in discussing the AWE/PBTA space: the design decisions the Bakers chose are divisive. Those key choices being Fiction First, playbooks, limited mechanics, and only 3 allowed difficulties: no roll autosuccess, roll for S/P/F. and autofail. (P for Partial - either success with complication, or only get part.)For me, those three difficulties are not enough. For some they are.  'nuf on that element. The limited mechanics: Vincent has mentioned on various forae that he wanted mechanics ONLY for the signature elements of the genre/setting; anything else is "say yes." But that very conceit (only mechanically handle the key theme elements) is a divisive idea. Many want their game rules to be fairly broad in mechanical coverage; a number in the AWE/PBTA fanbase extract the core element and use it as a more traditional S/P/F general engine. (Note that the partial success goes back at least as far as 1984, in Pendragon.) I'm on the fence; I do like being able, RAW, to mechanicalize any particular element, but it's not essential.Playbooks are a neat idea, IMO. But they do have the problem that they severely  constrain character design. They're classes as tight as many a D&D derivative. Classes are themselves a divisive issue. Playbooks being disguised classes... Or, in some non AWE/PBTA games' beginner boxes, specific PCs (Sentinel Comics Starter kit, all the FFG Star Wars beginner boxes and the L5R5 beginner box).And before the inevitable reply, "just modify it"... I'm one who uses Rules as Written as much as I can. This is so the players I run for can make sense of the worlds their characters inhabit.Having seen one PBTA influenced design with multiple difficulties, I'm always hopeful for more that do likewise.</blockquote>

Verification