Why I don't like PbtA

[Skywalker]

I think for many people, if they can get used to that, then the moves and such don’t seem problematic. But even still, there will always be people who simply don’t enjoy a given game.

That is a certainly a factor that I struggled with at the start. However, like the moves, I think it proves to be a theoretical issue mostly.

It’s pretty rare in play for the GM to want to make a move but one of the three most common triggers don’t apply. Golden opportunity and when the players look to the GM are pretty common occurrences, and the former is pretty much any situation where the narrative demands the GM to narrate something in response.

I have found I have most struggled with the three triggers is where the game is treading water. It’s a timely reminder that if the players are looking at you for what to do next, then the GM should be looking to fuel momentum by introducing stuff that compels the PCs into action.

The one area where it is clear that the GM should not interfere with is when the PC succeeds. Essentially, the GM should let the success ride. As you say, this is partially to deal with the issue where a GM can continue to influence the impact of successful roll in a traditional game, sometimes to effectively unwind or diminish a success.

Cast in a more positive light, I think this concept is important for letting both player and GM play to find out what happens. Both sides take their hands off the control when a move kicks in and the move makes it clear who does what once the dice are rolled. This also is an important aspect of why PbtA is a GM prep light game, as it gives the GM and players greater confidence that the PCs’ actions have more involvement in the direction of the story.

 

[Skywalker]

In regard to the GM side of PbtA more generally (moves, triggers, prep), it is not a surprise that experienced GM find the presentation of what was previously guidelines and discretion to be alarming and grating. However, as others have said, PbtA survives just fine if you run it as you would a traditional RPG for the most part.

Where the really value of these tools are is helping a GM self examine their style and improve on areas where there may be issues. The tools helps articulate these issues to allow for more constructive conversation between player and GM. PbtA really helped me deal with certain entrenched issues I had with my GM, reinvigorating for the last 10 years, even if I felt like they were dragged kicking and screaming into the light. Not every GM will necessary want (or survive) that process from an RPG system.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That is a certainly a factor that I struggled with at the start. However, like the moves, I think it proves to be a theoretical issue mostly.

It’s pretty rare in play for the GM to want to make a move but one of the three most common triggers don’t apply. Golden opportunity and when the players look to the GM are pretty common occurrences, and the former is pretty much any situation where the narrative demands the GM to narrate something in response.

I was speaking more about the timing of a GM move and also its scope. They’re defined and separated into moves not to limit what the GM can do, as is often the perception, but how much a GM can do when they’re supposed to do something. And then the idea of signaling with a soft move and following through with a hard one.

Most GMs who’ve been running more trad-leaning games feel like they’re being told how to do what they already know how to do. But I think it’s more a case of when and how much than it is what to do.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that it’s about letting success ride. Trad games don’t tend to prevent subversion of success by GM decision. Very often, their rules explicitly allow the GM to do that… especially if they have a rule zero type level of GM authority. By those kinds of rules, a GM can do anything. PbtA games tend to place clearly defined limits on the GM.

One buddy of mine who seems to not be a fan of PbtA type games said to me that he doesn’t need to be told not to undermine a player’s success. Which seems obvious… but that’s probably also something learned through trial and error over many years of GMing. And if it’s something a GM is going to avoid anyway, what’s the problem with putting it in the text?

I think that when viewed as a whole, the idea of playing to find out and letting success ride, combined with total player-facing mechanics and static target numbers and clearly defined procedures… all of it adds up to a clearly defined game. The participants all understand odds and potential outcomes and the scope of consequences, and so on.

 

[Skywalker]

One buddy of mine who seems to not be a fan of PbtA type games said to me that he doesn’t need to be told not to undermine a player’s success. Which seems obvious… but that’s probably also something learned through trial and error over many years of GMing. And if it’s something a GM is going to avoid anyway, what’s the problem with putting it in the text?

I definitely get that struggle as a GM of 40 years first encountering PbtA However, if you are experienced and confident as a GM and not in disagreement with the concept, then ultimately this is a theoretical issue rather than one in practice. There could even be an unexpected benefit as was in my case, where the reframing of the concept in a concrete way really helped me re-examine my GMing (once I was open to the process).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I definitely get that struggle as a GM of 40 years first encountering PbtA However, if you are experienced and confident as a GM and not in disagreement with the concept, then ultimately this is a theoretical issue rather than one in practice. There could even be an unexpected benefit as was in my case, where the reframing of the concept in a concrete way really helped me re-examine my GMing (once I had the humility to be open to the process).

Yeah, that’s largely been my experience with these kinds of games. They made me get very explicit about what I was doing. Which then has really carried over to other games.

 

[cryptkeeper]

Hence my longterm habit of referring to the PBTA system as "training wheels for GMs". And while there no doubt are GMs that need or want that, they serve no practical benefit to my style of GMing and thus for me are just... an extra step.

I have always referred to story-games, PbtA, as paint-by-numbers table top roleplaying games. Or games designed by people who just don't get roleplaying games.

 

[RangerRupert]

Zugzwang is a massive pain in the butt.

*high-fives a fellow chess buff*

 

[cryptkeeper]

In the end, I don't need - or want - a game to coach me on how to GM, or suggest ways for me to GM, or assume that there is some level of distrust between the GM and players that needs to be addressed. None of that is useful to me, and I don't like spending time (and money) to read through a bunch of that.

This is it for me, too!

 

[thebigh]

*high-fives a fellow chess buff*

These days I prefer Go, but if I'm being honest I'm complete rubbish at both games.

 

[RangerRupert]

These days I prefer Go, but if I'm being honest I'm complete rubbish at both games.

I love Go, but can't wrap my head around it the way I can chess (at least minimally).

 

[Simlasa]

the idea of playing to find out

Are you saying that's a new concept? Or does it mean something other than what it reads like?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Are you saying that's a new concept? Or does it mean something other than what it reads like?

I don’t think it was new when Apocalypse World came out, but I think its importance was stressed for a reason, and I think it’s a good thing to stress. I think it’s also best when it applies to all the participants in a game.

 

[cranebump]

I still have to make a move though. I can't just do it. I have to make a move of some sort. I have to fit whatever I want to do to one of the moves.

You don’t. Your move (reaction might be a better term) “follows the fiction.” You determine the logical consequence, the extremity of which depends on whether we’re talking hard or soft moves. Contrast this with a typical failure in, say, a combat roll in straight D&D. You just miss. Same thing in DW could result in something like you lopping off the head of the goblin you charged at, but your momentum carried you right into the gaggle behind it. Now you’re cut off from the party, and the spellcaster has lost his tank. You’ve killed a goblin, taken no damage, but your tactical situation is much worse. DW GM adjudications are about that - ramping up the tension by introducing dire situations (which can include straight damage, if the situation (or the move, in some cases) calls for it. Long story short: make the ruling that fits. Of it applies to the actual GM hard move list, fine. If not, so what? You’re just as “free” as the GM in many other, trad systems. I don’t feel like that’s the issue people actually have. I think it’s the fact that there’s no “you’re the GM, and the GM is God” statement (even though you damn well are in DW, as much as anywhere else).

 

[Simlasa]

I think it’s also best when it applies to all the participants in a game.

Did it not before PBTA came along?

 

[yosemitemike]

You don’t. Your move (reaction might be a better term) “follows the fiction.”

Here's the thing. That doesn't actually mean anything. It could mean about anything so it actually means nothing. Also, saying that you can just ignore the GM moves and do whatever you think fits is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the entire concept of GM moves. Why do I even need them then? Why are they even in the game? It's like all of the specific moves and the idea that people who don't have them can just generic moves to do the same thing. If that's the case, why are the specific moves even in the system?

I don’t think it was new when Apocalypse World came out, but I think its importance was stressed for a reason, and I think it’s a good thing to stress. I think it’s also best when it applies to all the participants in a game.

That's how any game with a randomizer works.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Did it not before PBTA came along?

Like, ever before? Sure, it had.

But there’d also been a serious shift away from that for a significant amount of time in gaming.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's how any game with a randomizer works.

I don’t think that’s true.

What’s randomized and what’s not? When and how? All kinds of factors matter.

 

[Simlasa]

But there’d also been a serious shift away from that for a significant amount of time in gaming.

When/where was that? You mean like with those Pathfinder storypath things? Some other kind of railroad?

This increasingly feels like one of those commercials on TV where it shows a guy doing some mundane thing... carrying out the trash maybe.... but then something goes wrong and, OOOPS! his arm is off... blood everywhere.
Or a guy who puts out his eye trying to open his mail.
Then the announcer steps in the with the new miracle device that's helps prevent such horrid (and non-existent) accidents... The Trash Buddy! or Mail Mitts!

 

[RangerRupert]

When/where was that? You mean like with those Pathfinder storypath things? Some other kind of railroad?

This increasingly feels like one of those commercials on TV where it shows a guy doing some mundane thing... carrying out the trash maybe.... but then something goes wrong and, OOOPS! his arm is off... blood everywhere.
Or a guy who puts out his eye trying to open his mail.
Then the announcer steps in the with the new miracle device that's helps prevent such horrid (and non-existent) accidents.

Lawn Darts: The Puncturing ...

 

[hawkeyefan]

When/where was that? You mean like with those Pathfinder storypath things? Some other kind of railroad?

This increasingly feels like one of those commercials on TV where it shows a guy doing some mundane thing... carrying out the trash maybe.... but then something goes wrong and, OOOPS! his arm is off... blood everywhere.
Or a guy who puts out his eye trying to open his mail.
Then the announcer steps in the with the new miracle device that's helps prevent such horrid (and non-existent) accidents.

It was way before Adventure Paths, but I’d say they’re the modern examples of what I’m talking about. AD&D really shifted the focus to story following the success of Dragonlance. Almost everything in 2e was about metaplot.

Lots of games have been designed in response to that, from the OSR to the Forge and things in between. All were responding to that shift. But they all remain a fraction of the overall RPG scene, which continues to be dominated by Adventure Paths and long form campaigns that are largely determined ahead of time.

 

[yosemitemike]

I don’t think that’s true.

What’s randomized and what’s not? When and how? All kinds of factors matter.

I have always found it to be true even running published campaigns or adventure path. There's the way you expect it to go and the way it actually goes. Between unpredictable players and random dice results, the two are never the same. You can try to make it go the way you want but that requires fighting the players and the game the entire way. The only time this works at all is organzied play scenarios or con games where there is a limited time window for play and everyone comes in knowing what we are doing here. Even then, it's impossible to predict how things will go. I have run the old PFS intro scenario at least 6 times and it went differently every time. It's not a complicated scenario with a lot of moving parts. It's a simple scenario made to introduce players to the game.

 

[el_octogono]

I didn't have the great experience many seem to have with PbtA games. I played a couple and I have my personal conclusions on the "system":

- Moves: the good thing about them is that they return a fictional codified chunk to the players and the table. That's how a PbtA makes it easier to create games such as the wrestling one, Action Movie World, Pasión de las Pasiones, etc. The GM and the table doesn't have to be necessarily well versed in game world/concept/theme. The bad thing about moves is that many times it's just our old beloved Table (I use to joke a friend who's a PbtA fan that they're like Rolemaster tables, but with less options, even RM gave specific fiction as result). Also, it happened to me many times that only one or two of the move's available options were appropriate or coherent with the fiction, and even sometimes not exactly what I wanted my PC to do.
- Playbooks are just character classes, with all the same ups and downs.
- Sometimes the emergent fiction is not that good... Entertaining maybe. PbtA really works with partial and "failed" rolls as a means to move the story forward and create new conflicts and drama. But that mechanism sometimes makes silly or anticlimactic situations.

All in all, I describe PbtA games as Popcorn RPGs. They may be fun, but deliver a canned formulaic experience. I don't dislike them, I'll still play some games, but they just don't click enough with me.

 

[Skywalker]

Are you saying that's a new concept? Or does it mean something other than what it reads like?

Definitely not a new concept. Some people were playing that way in the early days of RPGing, myself included. But it was more a style thing rather than a system thing. I remember finding PbtA to be a breath of fresh air by the way it called the concept out and supported it in such a transparent manner.

There was also the emergent of related concepts leading up to this as well with things like "letting it ride".

 

[Skywalker]

This increasingly feels like one of those commercials on TV where it shows a guy doing some mundane thing... carrying out the trash maybe.... but then something goes wrong and, OOOPS! his arm is off... blood everywhere.
Or a guy who puts out his eye trying to open his mail.
Then the announcer steps in the with the new miracle device that's helps prevent such horrid (and non-existent) accidents... The Trash Buddy! or Mail Mitts!

Its fascinating to see that quite a few people bounce off PbtA not for doing something they don't like, but because they take umbrage for it supporting something they do like in an explicit and transparent manner.

 

[AsenRG]

I look at PbtA as an warning story: "look, guys, here's what happens if you let a narrative-minded Referee run Free Kriegspiel, aren't you grateful to Gygax at least a bit now?"

...OK, joking aside, I see it as Frei Kriegspiel run by a narrative-minded GM instead of a world-simulator/arbitrator kind of Referee! No wonders that around the same time as AW was published the author started extolling the virtues of the OSR!

Are you saying that's a new concept? Or does it mean something other than what it reads like?

Yeah, that's literally the first style ever. It's just a new iteration of it, and run by a drama major instead of a wargamer...

Hey, better that than a railroad of the Dragonlance kind, I say.

 

[thebigh]

When/where was that? You mean like with those Pathfinder storypath things? Some other kind of railroad?

This increasingly feels like one of those commercials on TV where it shows a guy doing some mundane thing... carrying out the trash maybe.... but then something goes wrong and, OOOPS! his arm is off... blood everywhere.
Or a guy who puts out his eye trying to open his mail.
Then the announcer steps in the with the new miracle device that's helps prevent such horrid (and non-existent) accidents... The Trash Buddy! or Mail Mitts!

"A Little Late for Lenny" sounds a bit like a PbtA title.

 

[Simlasa]

Its fascinating to see that quite a few people bounce off PbtA not for doing something they don't like, but because they take umbrage for it supporting something they do like in an explicit and transparent manner.

It's fascinating that that is how you interpreted what I wrote. My implication was that it was not transparent at all... that it is adding a layer of obfuscation in an attempt to fix what was not broken (IMO).
It feels like a harness of some sort, but I'm not clear at all about what it is 'supporting'.

 

[Skywalker]

It's fascinating that that is how you interpreted what I wrote. My implication was that it was not transparent at all... that it is adding a layer of obfuscation in an attempt to fix what was not broken (IMO).
It feels like a harness of some sort, but I'm not clear at all about what it is 'supporting'.

My observation wasn't solely focused on your comment, but rather a number of posters who bounce off PbtA as it does things that they have always done anyway as opposed it doing something that they actually dislike.

The fact that you perceive the support to be harness is probably at the core of this, even when the support remains as optional as most other RPGs. Its almost as if being explicit and transparent is a part of the problem. Which makes sense when you look back at history how RPGs generally present with many elements not explained or left as loose guidelines.

My advice for those who have struggled with PbtA is to be confident to ultimately gauge how to apply the material presented as you would any RPG. You may find that there are advantages in its different style of presentation if you take a little more time with it, but either way there is not that much to lose.

 

[Simlasa]

My observation wasn't solely focused on your comment, but rather a number of posters who bounce off PbtA as it does things that they have always done anyway as opposed it doing something that they actually dislike.

Do you like drinking something that comes in a bottle, like beer? How do you feel about it after I put a rubber nipple on it? Better? You're still just drinking beer out of a bottle, no difference at all, right?

 

[Skywalker]

Do you like drinking something that comes in a bottle, like beer? How do you feel about it after I put a rubber nipple on it? Better? You're still just drinking beer out of a bottle, no difference at all, right?

If I can take the nipple off, it wouldn’t be an issue But it may also make me think about the benefits of using a nipple if I wanted to drink beer on a roller coaster.

 

[yosemitemike]

My observation wasn't solely focused on your comment, but rather a number of posters who bounce off PbtA as it does things that they have always done anyway as opposed it doing something that they actually dislike.

Not necessarily. The string mechanic from Monsterhearts is not doing something that I don anyway. It's doing something that I don't do and have consciously decided not to do. You have to do it though or the whole thing collapses.

Oh, I thought you meant the use of 'fiction' to describe the current gamestate. As in "do what the fiction demands" as a shorthand for adjudicate based on what makes sense according to what's happened, what's happening, and all the rest of the stuff that makes up the internal logic of our make believe games.

For me, referring to it as "the fiction" muddies what the intention of the whole thing is. I see a sharp division between running a game and making fiction. To me, playing and rpg and writing fiction are fundamentally different activities. When I am making fiction, I control everything that happens. It is "the" specific, singular fiction. That's not the case in an rpg. The players and dice get a say. I guess I could call it making fiction but only in retrospect after it has already happened.

If I can take the nipple off, it wouldn’t be an issue

But it may also make me think about the benefits of using a nipple if I wanted to drink beer on a roller coaster.

Unless the nipple is like the strings mechanic in Monsterhearts and trying to take it off make the whole bottle disintegrate.

 

[Skywalker]

You are crossing the streams here. It’s totally valid not to like an RPG. If a mechanic doesn’t work for you in substance then all’s fair. My observation was obviously not about your opinion of the Strings mechanic in Monsterhearts

 

[yosemitemike]

You are crossing the streams here. It’s totally valid not to like an RPG. If a mechanic doesn’t work for you in substance then all’s fair. My observation was obviously not about your opinion of the Strings mechanic in Monsterhearts

That was in response to the idea that people bounce off PbtA because it's doing something that they already do anyway. Maybe that's the case some of the time but it's not the case for me.

 

[Skywalker]

It’s also worth noting that Strings are not common in PbtA RPGs. It’s a specific mechanic for a few of them only. It’s possible your issue is with Monsterhearts and not PbtA on that alone.

 

[yosemitemike]

It’s also worth noting that Strings are not common in PbtA RPGs. It’s a specific mechanic for a few of them only. It’s possible your issue is with Monsterhearts and not PbtA on that alone.

It is a PbtA games and does refute the idea that people don't like PbtA because it does what they already do anyway. That's rather a nonsensical proposition to begin with. Sorry, but it's really coming across like you are trying to dismiss any criticism of PbtA as just being silly and irrational because what's the problem with a game just doing what you already do? That's obviously not the actual issue and never was. It actually is possible to not like PbtA for actual, considered reasons.

 

[Skywalker]

It actually is possible to not like PbtA for actual, considered reasons.

Yes I agree, as I did about half a dozen posts earlier.

Again, my comment to Simlasa was not in response to at your dislike of the Strings mechanic in Monsterhearts.

 

[zcthu3]

It is a PbtA games and does refute the idea that people don't like PbtA because it does what they already do anyway. That's rather a nonsensical proposition to begin with. Sorry, but it's really coming across like you are trying to dismiss any criticism of PbtA as just being silly and irrational because what's the problem with a game just doing what you already do? That's obviously not the actual issue and never was. It actually is possible to not like PbtA for actual, considered reasons.

But, if I am understanding your argument, you’re making a fairly nonsensical claim yourself - that because you don’t like strings in Monsterhearts, all PbtA games must be bad, even the ones that don’t use Strings at all.

If you had criticised PbtA because you don’t like player-facing rolls, the 2d6+mod, 6- = failure, 7+ = success etc. then that’s fair, because that’s common to all PbtA games - but you‘re criticising all PbtA games on the basis of a mechanic that doesn’t appear in all of them. I don’t like Monsterhearts personally, mainly as it’s just not a genre I like, but I wouldn’t say Urban Shadows or Monster of the Week are bad games because I don’t like Monsterhearts - PbtA is not a generic system, each game uses a core mechanic and then tailors itself to the genre.

 

[Skywalker]

For the record, I consider myself to be PbtA fan but I don’t like Monsterhearts (and many other PbtA RPGs). This is going to be common as PbtA RPGs are very diverse as it’s less of a unified rule system and more of a rules approach where specific rules implementation can vary widely.

 

[Fenris-77]

Now this sounds like a Pub PbtA thread: misunderstanding, casual dismissal, hurt feelings and syllogistic logic. Good to know everything is right with the world.

 

[AsenRG]

My observation wasn't solely focused on your comment, but rather a number of posters who bounce off PbtA as it does things that they have always done anyway as opposed it doing something that they actually dislike.

Try this: it is doing things we already are doing but interweaving it inexorably with other things that we don't.

Like, you know, GM moves, player-facing rolls, static TNs that don't change to account for the situation, "gating" what seems like "normal moves" behind "moves purchases", delegating narrative powers to players, and so on... all of these are being used in pretty much all versions of PbtA I'm familiar with (including some that I'd houseruled away so quickly I had even forgotten they're originally in the text...and I think I even argued with CRKrueger that my houserule is the original version).

Do you like drinking something that comes in a bottle, like beer? How do you feel about it after I put a rubber nipple on it? Better? You're still just drinking beer out of a bottle, no difference at all, right?

If I can take the nipple off, it wouldn’t be an issue

And if you can't?

How about "you can, but then it's just beer in a bottle"? What's the point of removing the rubber nipple just to drink beer, if you can just buy, you know, a bottle of beer and not need to remove anything?

"Why are you even bothering to buy Rubber Nipple Beer if you're going to remove the rubber nipple anyway" is a very valid criticism in my book...

But it may also make me think about the benefits of using a nipple if I wanted to drink beer on a roller coaster.

What if roller coasters make you sick?

Sorry, but it's really coming across like you are trying to dismiss any criticism of PbtA as just being silly and irrational

Yeah, sorry to say, but that's my reading as well!


Mind you, all of that being said, the rubber nipple beer analogy captures my attitude towards PbtA perfectly: I'd much rather play PbtA than many other systems, including any edition of D&D...or 2d20, for that matter. But that also means, incidentally, I'd much prefer running something else.