Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7924993" data-attributes="member: 5142">Same. I value the ability to jump into game play relatively quickly and mechanics that are straightforward for play. On the other hand, I have a mixed opinion about this. While I agree that having mechanics and setting designed hand-in-hand help reinforce the feel of the game, such as BitD, it also can make it more difficult to take good set of system mechanics that you like and make them your own for a different setting. BitD is a good example, because it has great game play, but I find the BitD setting kinda dull and not the sort of setting that I would like to actually run. The setting was my biggest hang-up with even picking up the book. This also my problem with a number of the PbtA games. They are often so incredibly narrow in their slice of genre that if you don't like it, then you either have to design your own or look for the appropriate genre flavor you are looking for in another system. One of my favorite systems was True20 because it offered a relatively generic ruleset that allowed me to heavily customize for whatever genre or world that I was running. The books even discussed the math so you could easily design your own classes and the like relatively easy. Or you could adjust power lists so that they were genre/setting appropriate. So while my gaming tastes have moved beyond its antiquated d20 system in favor of more narrative games, I miss having that sort of customization for designing character options for settings. Ironsworn may be a sign of the PbtA system being pushed in that direction, even if it is setting specific. It removes playbooks in favor of Asset cards that players can just pick at character creation and as they level. So I do think that the PbtA system can potentially handle more customization that is a bit more divorced from setting.</blockquote>

Verification