Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I am very interested in PbtA games but my inability to consistently come up with interesting and original 7-9 complications is holding me back. I already struggle with "success with complications" in my D&D games. Like, a published list of outcomes would be helpful
I think Blades actually does a better job of providing some support for ideas of how to implement that.
 
I am very interested in PbtA games but my inability to consistently come up with interesting and original 7-9 complications is holding me back. I already struggle with "success with complications" in my D&D games. Like, a published list of outcomes would be helpful

I feel you to some extent. It's easier in PbP as you have a little time to come up with something but having to do it all the time at the table would be a grind. I think the dice mechanics need tweaking to turn up success-with-complications less often.
 
I am very interested in PbtA games but my inability to consistently come up with interesting and original 7-9 complications is holding me back. I already struggle with "success with complications" in my D&D games. Like, a published list of outcomes would be helpful
Some Moves already list what the complication is on a 7-9 result. Others leave it up to the GM - basically a Hard Move, though not as hard as you'd go on a failure. And if you look at the list of hard moves, not all of them are complications. The list is meant to be inspirational, not prescriptive(though if you can come up with something not actually covered under any of them - most of them are quite broad - I'd be interested in hearing about it).

And if nothing comes to mind, and the list of hard moves isn't helping . . . you can literally just not worry about it and continue onwards. If nothing fits, then it doesn't fit and you're never supposed to force it. You could even "bank" some hard moves, though in such a case I'd make sure to let the players know that I do so and would set a hard limit of banked moves of perhaps 2 or 3. Bringing the occasional hard move "out of nowhere" due to having banked it earlier is one thing; cashing in a bunch of them at once is just being a jerk.

And Apocalypse World's GM advice seems to be intended to get a total novice from 0 to fluent in GMing. It's not meant for every GM, period. There seems to be an understanding that these structures and suggestions are intended to help someone more on the novice end with pacing, and that as you gain experience and confidence as a GM you'll figure out what does and does not work for you/your group and adjust accordingly.
 
Coincidentally, I have been looking for a Blades-style Mythos game so if anyone can find one lemme know.
That's a really interesting idea. I'm not even sure how that would work but I'd love to give it a try. I don't think there's an existing mythos Blades hack...
 
I am very interested in PbtA games but my inability to consistently come up with interesting and original 7-9 complications is holding me back. I already struggle with "success with complications" in my D&D games. Like, a published list of outcomes would be helpful
I found this on Gauntlet's discord channel and it's helpful:
harm-cost-and-complications.png

The first time I ran Worlds in Peril, a supers PbtA, thinking up multiple conditions/complications for an invincible character on the fly were tough. I eventually just kept a list handy.
 
I am very interested in PbtA games but my inability to consistently come up with interesting and original 7-9 complications is holding me back. I already struggle with "success with complications" in my D&D games. Like, a published list of outcomes would be helpful

It can be a bit tough at first, but becomes easier with practice. I’m more familiar with Blades in the Dark than most PbtA games, but the principles are similar. One of the things I prep is some ideas about possible consequences. I draw on movies and comics and books for inspiration.

One game that does this in a slightly different way, but which I think helps, is the Spire RPG. Oh, and Heart…so two games, same system.

In those games, you have 5 Resistances which take stress whenever you fail a roll or get a success with consequence. Just breaking it out into the 5 categories can really help. They’re Blood (physical harm), Mind (mental harm), Silver (financial or equipment harm), Reputation (social harm), or Shadow (anonymity harm).

Having those categories gives you a solid first step…what kind of stress/consequences fit this situation. In many games, physical harm is the most obvious and oft used. So I try yo think of interesting ways to complicate things for the characters through their gear or reputation and the like.

Once you start to get used to it, it does become easier.
 
Like, a published list of outcomes would be helpful
Nearly every PbtA RPG has a long list of GM Moves that is exactly this.

As for 2d6 v 1d6 + 2d10, even if the latter added slightly better distribution of odds, I think it would reduce the approachability that is key part of PbtA’s success.
 
Nearly every PbtA RPG has a long list of GM Moves that is exactly this.

As for 2d6 v 1d6 + 2d10, even if the latter added slightly better distribution of odds, I think it would reduce the approachability that is key part of PbtA’s success.
In my 2 hour a week game (the Between) with 5 players, typically they each only roll 2 to 5 times a session. If you're only rolling a couple times, I don't think the players are even thinking about the odds.

Additionally, the Between has the Mask of Janus mechanic which allows players to bump up their result at the cost of developing more backstory (and some supernatural/threat consequences with some) and when you're out of Masks, you're either retired or dead. We've been playing since July and they are just now starting to burn through their 12 Masks.
 
Cool! I haven't been to the forged page in a hot minute. That said, I have some reservations about a game that unironically uses the phrase 'Wyld Witches'.
Help a foreigner out. What's a hot minute?
 
I found this on Gauntlet's discord channel and it's helpful:
View attachment 40066

The first time I ran Worlds in Peril, a supers PbtA, thinking up multiple conditions/complications for an invincible character on the fly were tough. I eventually just kept a list handy.
I'm not a PbtA guy. That being said, I think this flow chart thingy*. Gives a lot of food for though on handling situations in any game.
(*that is a highly technical term, we don't have time to go into. :tongue: )
 
I'm not a PbtA guy. That being said, I think this flow chart thingy*. Gives a lot of food for though on handling situations in any game.
(*that is a highly technical term, we don't have time to go into. :tongue: )
Sometimes bad things happen to good people. :smile:
 
I don't normally mention stuff said on other boards, but this amused me too much to resist.

While people argue on here that moves aren't *that* different from things in other RPGs, over on TPB the PbtA evangelists are arguing that PbtA is a new and unique experience that requires a complete "paradigm shift" to truly understand.

At this point I'm starting to suspect there's two separate systems by the same name.

More seriously, I think it's closer to the former but some people elsewhere can't get out of having D&D as their main point of comparison. A lot of the supposed shifts aren't as scary if you know other games. (I don't see that much difference between interpreting a player move as a PbTA GM and ruling what "Height 8, Width 3" means in ORE GMing).

Which would also tie in with Brock Savage Brock Savage's question. Honestly, I think anything unfamiliar is going to be a bit intimidating and system experience is the only way to get past that. I know when I started ORE interpreting the roll seemed a bit scary, but now I can do it without thinking.
 
I don't normally mention stuff said on other boards, but this amused me too much to resist.

While people argue on here that moves aren't *that* different from things in other RPGs, over on TPB the PbtA evangelists are arguing that PbtA is a new and unique experience that requires a complete "paradigm shift" to truly understand.

At this point I'm starting to suspect there's two separate systems by the same name.

More seriously, I think it's closer to the former but some people elsewhere can't get out of having D&D as their main point of comparison. A lot of the supposed shifts aren't as scary if you know other games. (I don't see that much difference between interpreting a player move as a PbTA GM and ruling what "Height 8, Width 3" means in ORE GMing).

Which would also tie in with Brock Savage Brock Savage's question. Honestly, I think anything unfamiliar is going to be a bit intimidating and system experience is the only way to get past that. I know when I started ORE interpreting the roll seemed a bit scary, but now I can do it without thinking.
Unless I'm missing something, I sure haven't experienced a paradigm shift. Something tells me I would feel it if I had.

Whatever mechanic I'm using, I'm in the same headspace using dice.
 
Unless I'm missing something, I sure haven't felt a paradigm shift. Something tells me I would feel it if I had experienced it.

Whatever mechanic I'm using, I'm in the same headspace using dice.
I can understand the claim more with actual storygames, rather than narrative RPGs.

Yeah, those do require a different approach because you have to be willing to go along with their mechanical structure in its entirety. (Which is why my group bounced off them hard. They never got into the idea that you determine the mechanical outcome than work out a narrative to fit).

But stuff like Blades or PbTA? Yeah, not so much. I'm not saying there aren't some differences, but no more than you get with the difference between a high and low crunch RPG.
 
While people argue on here that moves aren't *that* different from things in other RPGs, over on TPB the PbtA evangelists are arguing that PbtA is a new and unique experience that requires a complete "paradigm shift" to truly understand.
Honestly, that doesn't surprise me. Those entrenched in the old storygame movement tend to either overstate or understate the level of difference between their preferred games and more traditional fare. Sometimes changing which one depending on whom they're speaking to, which I find a bit disingenuous and a lot unhelpful. I like a lot of the games that exist because of that movement, but find a lot of the personalities w/in the movement insufferable.

In this case, overstate. I tend to think of PbtA games as fresh but familiar low-to-medium-crunch games. It's not the first system to have variable success levels included in the die results. It's not the first system to group what would normally be covered by skills together into various packages(how PbtA handles its main stats, usually). For goodness sake, most of the Moves are basically Feats and/or class features by another name. What's important to me is that the overall package just works, and that it's so hella simple to run(usually) that even I can do it.
 
I can understand the claim more with actual storygames, rather than narrative RPGs.

Yeah, those do require a different approach because you have to be willing to go along with their mechanical structure in its entirety. (Which is why my group bounced off them hard. They never got into the idea that you determine the mechanical outcome than work out a narrative to fit).

But stuff like Blades or PbTA? Yeah, not so much. I'm not saying there aren't some differences, but no more than you get with the difference between a high and low crunch RPG.

I largely agree with your take; there are differences, but they aren't so different as to be incomprehensible. But I think a lot of times, it depends on the audience, so to speak. There are many people who would agree with us....different mechanics, different approach, different focus, but still a game as they recognize them.

But other folks don't see it that way. I've discussed PbtA and FitD games with people who just couldn't quite wrap their head around one element or another. When I'm speaking with folks who fall into this category, I do tend to shift how I approach the conversation.

Honestly, I think the folks in the latter camp tend to be people who've only ever played D&D and maybe one or two other games that are very similar to D&D. As you say, the more exposure to different games, the more likely one gets PbtA and more narrative games right away.
 
I largely agree with your take; there are differences, but they aren't so different as to be incomprehensible. But I think a lot of times, it depends on the audience, so to speak. There are many people who would agree with us....different mechanics, different approach, different focus, but still a game as they recognize them.

But other folks don't see it that way. I've discussed PbtA and FitD games with people who just couldn't quite wrap their head around one element or another. When I'm speaking with folks who fall into this category, I do tend to shift how I approach the conversation.

Honestly, I think the folks in the latter camp tend to be people who've only ever played D&D and maybe one or two other games that are very similar to D&D. As you say, the more exposure to different games, the more likely one gets PbtA and more narrative games right away.
It's also notable that some of the people most prone to seeing PbtA as an entirely different kind of game are the same ones that get very offended by the counter "not a RPG" argument.

I don't agree with that; unlike storygames narrative RPGs have enough common structure to be a subgenre rather than a new genre. But it seems ironic that people will both claim that PbtA is a total break from all previous RPGs while getting offended if you take them at their word.
 
I can understand the claim more with actual storygames, rather than narrative RPGs.

Yeah, those do require a different approach because you have to be willing to go along with their mechanical structure in its entirety. (Which is why my group bounced off them hard. They never got into the idea that you determine the mechanical outcome than work out a narrative to fit).

But stuff like Blades or PbTA? Yeah, not so much. I'm not saying there aren't some differences, but no more than you get with the difference between a high and low crunch RPG.

Odd, I didn't find much PbtA talk on TBP and most of the time the little talk I did find was overtly negative. In fact, I almost caught a temp ban for being too negative about others negativity towards PbtA as a system.
 
I’ve never understood the disconnect some commentators have about PbtA games. I think story games like Fiasco are structurally different to standard D&D-style RPGs, while still being a roleplaying game, but PbtA is just a different approach to typical RPG design with its own conventions.

Essentially, everybody still plays the role of a character, apart from a GM who runs the rest, and people still roll dice adjusted by character stats to determine the outcome of chosen actions/conflicts. You could argue that it tends to codify and scaffold what you can and can’t do a bit more than other games and there is an emphasis on driving story through failure but, to me, calling things ‘moves’ is just part of the jargon of the game and the aim of driving a story through the medium of a RPG has been around as long as the hobby. There are other RPGs who have adopted a ‘fail forward’ approach also, so it isn’t anything particularly exclusive.

I used to think there was an element of ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ for those who seemed to insist that it was revolutionary in its approach - as if they relished being categorized as something wholly different - but nowadays it just seems to me that some people have hang-ups about the game and simply refuse to accept it for what it is. That being a neat way of formatting a style of roleplaying, that is evidently popular amongst some gamers.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never understood the disconnect some commentators have about PbtA games. I think story games like Fiasco are structurally different to standard D&D-style RPGs, while still being a roleplaying game, but PbtA is just a different approach to typical RPG design with its own conventions.
Oddly, Fiasco is my first response in these kinds of discussions when asked "Well, what's a game that you'll concede clearly isn't an RPG?" My reasoning is that if it lacks one of the 3 letters altogether - in this case the G - it doesn't qualify. It's a structured improv exercise - a very fun one - but there is no game there. And I would say without the G, it only leaves half(or less) of the P, relegating it to merely the sense in which an actor might use the word "play."
 
Oddly, Fiasco is my first response in these kinds of discussions when asked "Well, what's a game that you'll concede clearly isn't an RPG?" My reasoning is that if it lacks one of the 3 letters altogether - in this case the G - it doesn't qualify. It's a structured improv exercise - a very fun one - but there is no game there. And I would say without the G, it only leaves half(or less) of the P, relegating it to merely the sense in which an actor might use the word "play."
Why isn’t it a game? Isn’t a game merely "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun”? [Google definition....)

The game of Fiasco is surely that of having amusement or fun in the construction of a story as an outcome of playing. I mean, what makes it less of a game than a whole bunch of RPGs out there?
 
Why isn’t it a game? Isn’t a game merely "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun”? [Google definition....)

The game of Fiasco is surely that of having amusement or fun in the construction of a story as an outcome of playing. I mean, what makes it less of a game than a whole bunch of RPGs out there?
Now, now, Don't go hyper-pedantic and ignore the fact that there are connotations in addition to just denotations when talking about what a word means. It's not an RPG in the same way that any other improv(or acting) exercise isn't an RPG, even though you could make a hyperliteral case for all 3 letters in some sense where improv is concerned. Just, in the case of the G and some of the P, not the sense anyone means when talking about RPGs.
 
Now, now, Don't go hyper-pedantic and ignore the fact that there are connotations in addition to just denotations when talking about what a word means. It's not an RPG in the same way that any other improv(or acting) exercise isn't an RPG, even though you could make a hyperliteral case for all 3 letters in some sense where improv is concerned. Just, in the case of the G and some of the P, not the sense anyone means when talking about RPGs.
It isn’t hyper-pedantic. I’m genuinely curious how you can classify Fiasco as not being a game, any more than practically any other RPG out there?

The outcomes of events are determined through dice-rolling (or latterly card flipping) and player interaction/decision making. It isn’t just total improv, although the roleplaying elements are, in relation to the aforementioned mechanics. What is different with Fiasco, compared to D&D-style roleplaying, is the emphasis and structure of those mechanics. But it is still a game because of that structure.
 
Last edited:
It isn’t hyper-pedantic. I’m genuinely curious how you can classify Fiasco as not being a game, any more than practically any other RPG out there?
I already said so. There's literally no game portion to it. It goes so far beyond being "structurally different," unless by that you mean it's entirely lacking certain structures. Which I'd agree - structures fundamental to something being an RPG in the first place. There's absolutely nothing governing any aspect of your character - physical, mental, otherwise - or detailing how your character interacts with the game world. It's literally a structured improv exercise - a fun one, as I've said - and nothing more. We all know that RPing draws from improv, but it's more than that. Fiaso is not more than that.

It's also worth pointing out that your definition would also encompass things like reading, listening to music, and watching TV. It's non-specific to the point of useless as far as definitions go.
 
I already said so. There's literally no game portion to it. It goes so far beyond being "structurally different," unless by that you mean it's entirely lacking certain structures. Which I'd agree - structures fundamental to something being an RPG in the first place. There's absolutely nothing governing any aspect of your character - physical, mental, otherwise - or detailing how your character interacts with the game world. It's literally a structured improv exercise - a fun one, as I've said - and nothing more. We all know that RPing draws from improv, but it's more than that. Fiaso is not more than that.

It's also worth pointing out that your definition would also encompass things like reading, listening to music, and watching TV. It's non-specific to the point of useless as far as definitions go.
There are no governing stats -mental or physical - when you play Monopoly or Pandemic, but they are still games.

There are mechanics Fiasco that detail how you character interacts with the game world. That is why you roll dice or flip cards in the game, to build the character relationships within the game world - and the play stems from that.

Based on your own argument, all D&D amounts to is a structured improv exercise. The fact that it punctuates this with rules derived from wargaming doesn’t mean this is the only structure a roleplaying game can have to qualify it as being a game.
 
There are no governing stats -mental or physical - when you play Monopoly or Pandemic, but they are still games.

But are they role-playing games? I think not. Remember, all 3 letters must be present, and must be within a certain semantic range. Otherwise you end up not excluding things that are clearly and unambiguously different, like now.

There are mechanics Fiasco that detail how you character interacts with the game world. That is why you roll dice or flip cards in the game, to build the character relationships within the game world - and the play stems from that.

You establish roles, yes. I never said that it lacked the R at all. Only the G and an important part of the P as a result. All of what you described takes part as part of the setup, which definitely isn't role-playing. Then you have the actual play, which lacks any game whatsoever. Structured improv, plain and simple. And then you have that final roll of the dice, which determines what type of ending your character gets, but it's totally divorced from anything your character said or did previously. It's up to you to make whatever you narrate fit.

Based on your own argument, all D&D amounts to is a structured improv exercise. The fact that it punctuates this with rules derived from wargaming doesn’t mean this is the only structure a roleplaying game can have to qualify it as being a game.

Uh . . . no. I said nothing of the sort, not did anything I say imply any such thing. You, however, did quote an extremely broad definition of the word "game" that, if taken at face value, would encompass a wide variety of activities that are obviously not game.

I can accept a wide variety of things as "real RPGs," and I know that where I would draw the line is quite a bit farther out than many people would, but I still agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. And where PbtA games in general fit comforably within that line, Fiasco pole vaults that sucker. Which is honestly unnecessary considering the line's drawn on the ground, but Fiaso gotta be extra like that.
 
But are they role-playing games? I think not. Remember, all 3 letters must be present, and must be within a certain semantic range. Otherwise you end up not excluding things that are clearly and unambiguously different, like now.
Well, first of all, that is shifting the goalposts. You were previously claiming Fiasco wasn’t a game.

Secondly, Fiasco is definitely and undeniably a game where you play roles. So yes it is a “RPG” with each of the letters present.

You establish roles, yes. I never said that it lacked the R at all. Only the G and an important part of the P as a result. All of what you described takes part as part of the setup, which definitely isn't role-playing. Then you have the actual play, which lacks any game whatsoever. Structured improv, plain and simple. And then you have that final roll of the dice, which determines what type of ending your character gets, but it's totally divorced from anything your character said or did previously. It's up to you to make whatever you narrate fit.

So it is definitely roleplay, and it also fulfills the notion of being a game. It has rules of play, and an outcome of play. It is fun to play. It is a game. Are you sure you have actually played it, because you are not describing the same game I have played, incidentally. After you roll the dice, players make decisions about how the game pans out, based on rules of play, and those decisions have consequences in play. There is a balance between dice rolling and outcomes based on decisions made by players. That is what makes it a game.

Uh . . . no. I said nothing of the sort, not did anything I say imply any such thing. You, however, did quote an extremely broad definition of the word "game" that, if taken at face value, would encompass a wide variety of activities that are obviously not game.

I can accept a wide variety of things as "real RPGs," and I know that where I would draw the line is quite a bit farther out than many people would, but I still agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. And where PbtA games in general fit comforably within that line, Fiasco pole vaults that sucker. Which is honestly unnecessary considering the line's drawn on the ground, but Fiaso gotta be extra like that.

It is not a broad definition of a ‘game' at all. I quoted the definition from a dictionary! What you have is an extremely narrow definition of a ‘game', by contrast. Whether or not Fiasco has the same structure as D&D, does not mean it cannot be a roleplaying game. And, while we try and tailor this excursion back to the topic at hand, the same is true of PbtA games.
 
Last edited:
A roleplaying game is whatever people will buy (and/or play) accepting it's a roleplaying game. The market (and the marketing) defines the term.
Which makes sense once you remember language is a convention.
 
At least you have the luxury of all those awesome letters. Around here, we don't even have proper different words for "playing" and "game".
 
I'd say Fiasco is definitely a game, but whether it's an RPG is more nebulous. That one pretty much comes down to whether you consider "roleplaying game" and "game where you take on a role" to be the same thing. The latter would include Cowboys and Indians and many boardgames. (Arguably all of them but the abstracts. Even in most Eurogames you do things like take on the role of a farmer).

It is not a broad definition of a ‘game' at all. I quoted the definition from a dictionary! What you have is an extremely narrow definition of a ‘game', by contrast. Whether or not Fiasco has the same structure as D&D, does not mean it cannot be a roleplaying game. And, while we try and tailor this excursion back to the topic at hand, the same is true of PbtA games.

Because dictionaries stem from common usage, their definitions aren't always great for defining these kind of fringe cases. A perfect example:

a game in which participants adopt the roles of imaginary characters in an adventure under the direction of a Game Master.

dictionary.com which I think is the same one you used? And I suspect we'd all agree that the idea that GMless games can't be RPGs is a step too far.
 
Last edited:
I'd say Fiasco is definitely a game, but whether it's an RPG is more nebulous. That one pretty much comes down to whether you consider "roleplaying game" and "game where you take on a role" to be the same thing. The latter would include Cowboys and Indians and many boardgames. (Arguably all of them but the abstracts. Even in most Eurogames you do things like take on the role of a farmer).
Well, yes, that is where the complications come in. Fiasco confounds the notion of what a RPG is, for sure.

My initial point was to simply counter the notion that Fiasco wasn’t a ‘game’ - how can it not be a game?

However, on your point, I’d say that it is more definitively 'roleplaying' than a European board game, on the grounds that you are actually encouraged to act out roles in collaborative scenes. I mean, if you turned up to a psychiatrist who asked you to ‘roleplay’ something, you’d be doing a similar thing.

You could argue that Cowboys & Indians is also an RPG (in a live action format), but there usually isn’t any formalized or structured rules associated with it and it is not something that could be resolved around a tabletop in the same way Fiasco does. Other attempts at subverting the meaning of ‘RPG’, like Baron Munchausen, for example, still fall short of what Fiasco does because they don’t really define characters in the same way. Fiasco doesn’t use traditional stats to determine capabilities, but characters are nevertheless defined by their relationships to other characters and the environment which give the roles context and meaning. You definitely play a defined role in the game.
 
Last edited:
I don't normally mention stuff said on other boards, but this amused me too much to resist.

While people argue on here that moves aren't *that* different from things in other RPGs, over on TPB the PbtA evangelists are arguing that PbtA is a new and unique experience that requires a complete "paradigm shift" to truly understand.

At this point I'm starting to suspect there's two separate systems by the same name.

More seriously, I think it's closer to the former but some people elsewhere can't get out of having D&D as their main point of comparison. A lot of the supposed shifts aren't as scary if you know other games. (I don't see that much difference between interpreting a player move as a PbTA GM and ruling what "Height 8, Width 3" means in ORE GMing).

Which would also tie in with Brock Savage Brock Savage's question. Honestly, I think anything unfamiliar is going to be a bit intimidating and system experience is the only way to get past that. I know when I started ORE interpreting the roll seemed a bit scary, but now I can do it without thinking.
It's always bothered me too. As far as I'm concerned, the innovations in PbtA games are the presentation; mechanically there's almost nothing interesting going on (Except partial success / failure, which isn't exactly a new mechanic outside of D&D anyway, and even D&D experiments with it). You could probably rearrange a PbtA game into a conventional rulebook style fairly easily, without changing the game in any way, and vice-versa. The interesting things in a PbtA game are the templating and the absolute buckets of theme that run through the entire thing, with almost everything drawing back into that theme and how to get there, and that's more about design philosophy than "2d6 roll high". Wanderhome is clearly a PbtA game, even though it's entirely diceless.

It's attracted a lot of new designers with new ideas into the hobby, but that's common whenever a design tends to blow up.
 
It's attracted a lot of new designers with new ideas into the hobby, but that's common whenever a design tends to blow up.
And is a mixed blessing at best. One reason I think it's getting a bit of a bad reputation now is the large amount of "write up a few new moves and playbooks and publish" PbtA games on the market.

There's some very well done PbtA stuff but there's a lot of games that seem very lazy.

It reminds me of the d20 glut in that way.
 
On PbtA being an RPG, it's worth considering what Vincent Baker was doing when he created Apocalypse World. He was exploring RPG structures and procedures and trying express all the theorizing about RPGs he was doing in a game. How many people's reaction to PbtA comes out of it's origins in The Forge vs. any idea at all of what an RPG should look like and do? I think the innovation in Apocalypse World is not any of the specific mechanics or presentations but purely the fact that it was built intentionally from Baker's thoughts on RPG theory. Of course that means that many of the PbtA games are no more revolutionary than the numerous "fantasy heart breakers" that followed D&D (of any edition - lots of D20 heart breakers...) since the authors are just copying concepts without basing their efforts in any understanding of theory.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top