What do you think about Powered by the Apocalypse games?

[Hex08]

I've seen some discussion on these boards about PbtA games but I am not at all familiar with them. The discussions got me curious so I got my hands on the pdfs of Apocalypse World, Dungeon World and Ironsworn but haven't sat down to read them yet. It will be a while before I will have the chance to sit down with them but I am curious to see what other's think about them. For those of you that are familiar with the games and the PbtA system, what do you think? What's good about the games and system and what's not so good?

 

[hawkeyefan]

As a group, the quality is a bit all over the place. Some versions are great. Some are not.

The ones you listed, including the one that started the whole subset, are among the ones widely considered great.

Opinions on the play procedures and rules will vary, of course. Generally speaking, the rules are far more player facing and players are more involved in driving the game. Characters have Playbooks, which is very much like class, but lists all the different special abilities and moves for the character. There are also basic moves available to all. These moves have outcomes that will drive play based on the results of a roll.

It is a bit of a change from D&D and similar games, although probably not as big a change as some folks may claim. The game is meant to eschew the prep heavy, GM-directed play associated with D&D and similar games, and is instead focused on finding out what happens during play. The mechanics are designed to promote this. The idea is to not have a pre-authored plot where the players simply have their characters proceed along the predetermined path to complete "the story".

I'm currently playing in a PbtA game of Stonetop, which is a take on Dungeon World, and so far it's been a lot of fun.

 

[Yora]

It's a great set of core mechanics.

It's not a good idea for every kind of adventures and settings. And executions can vary widely.

I think Apocalypse World is the best game of the bunch I've seen, as the mechanics were created for that specific vision of adventures. Which is very weird and quirky and meant to be irreverent chaos.
On the other end is Dungeon World, which I think was a really stupid idea from the start. Don't use mechanics designed to create an experience very different from D&D to recreate the experience of D&D.

 

[timbannock]

I'm really glad they are out there. Some of the best GMing advice ever written comes from those games.

But I don't enjoy running them. Moves and the high degree of player-driven setting creation are at odds with how I run games.

 

[John R Davis]

They are one of the few games you can play " wrong".

Needs lots player buy-in and being comfortable with opposing player agendas.
Players need to be happy with some agency loss on occasion.
Certainly certificate 15+ in most experiences I've seen.
No dice roll is wasted or unneccesary.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I ran a great campaign of Dungeon World back in the mid-2010's. I would say it hasn't aged well, and a lot of PbtA tech has improved since then. But it's not terrible and we had a blast. Light prep was definitely what happened.

The thing with PbtA that I've noticed is often moves can snowball quickly, because the 7-9 destabilizes the situation, and then that leads to more attempts at difficult things; which leads to more rolls that are both good and bad, and to solve the bad things more rolls are needed which leads to more attempts at difficult things etc etc etc.

 

[GrahamWills]

I have found them a bit frustrating. The emphasis on not needing prep, and on making sure that something happens every roll, led to an experience where nothing can ever be simple; everything leads to more scenes and improv activities. My preference is for systems like FATE where you CAN do that, not where you are forced into it. Sometimes you just want to see if the guard can be bribed, not start a whole new guard-complication arc.

But, a lot of people like it, and it is absolutely solidly constructed and the versions I have played work well, so it’s definitely worth trying out and seeing if you like it.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Don't care for them. I prefer more crunch, and a full exercise of my Roll20 Pro settings. Is I pay $100 for a service, any campaign I run is going to fully use that service.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I've enjoyed them for one-shot games or very short (5 sessions or fewer) campaigns. I wouldn't want to use the system for a long campaign.

 

[jdrakeh]

The problem is, there is not really such a thing as standard "Apocalypse Engine" game anymore. There are tons of different permutations on the market - some for solo play, some with laser focused playbooks, some with only a list of moves, etc. I like the core of the system quite a bit but, for example, my love for playbooks depends heavily on how they're implemented in a given game (I've hated them in some games, been ambivalent to them in others, and even enjoyed a few). I've enjoyed Monster of the Week, for example. I hated Tremulus.