Why I don't like PbtA

[yosemitemike]

There are a lot of PbtA games out there and I don't really want to sort through them to find something that I would like. There's just too much of it.

What I have run and why I didn't like it

Night Witches
This does a decent job of being a lesbian telenovela simulator. For a game that's supposed to be about WWII aviators, the plane part of the game barely exists. Also, in play, there's really not much to the game other than doing the day/night cycle several times and then moving to a different location to do that some more.

Monsterhearts
The strings mechanics work pretty well for what they are supposed to do but it's not something I want to do. The idea that you can get these strings on other PCs and then use them to punish people for not playing how you want them to play is counter to the way I run games

What I don't like

Playbooks
I don't like it when the designers clearly cared more about some playbooks than others. The worst is when there is one that may as well be renamed The Protagonist because that's clearly what they are supposed to be. The nature witch from Thirsty Sword Lesbians is the worst example I have seen. They clearly cared more about this one than the others to the point that they may as well have called it The Main Character. On the other extreme, there are playbooks that exist to be sidekicks. Sometimes explicitly so. You don't get any cool mechanics. You are...there.
I don't like it when playbooks effectively are your character. They aren't a type of character. They are a character. This is who you are. This is what you do. This is how you do it.

Moves
I don't like games with an extensive list of specific moves especially when some of them are things that anyone should be able to at least try like befriending someone or hitting someone with a barstool. You need to have a move to do that...or do you? I don't have the improvised weapons rule so I can't hit someone with a bottle in a bar brawl...or I can using the general hurt you move? The first is dumb and the second makes that specific move irrelevant. It also turns the generic moves into supermoves. If you have +3 to the generic hurt people move, screw everything else.
I don't like vague moves. On a 7+, you do the thing but vague bad thing happens. Fate intervenes. You must make a sacrifice. Fill in vaguely bad thing here. What does that even mean?

PbtA seems to be a fine balancing act between not specific enough and too specific. Too far either way and the whole thing falls apart. Not specific enough and it becomes a vague mess. Too specific and it becomes a straitjacket.

So what's a PbtA game that I might like. Ideally one that does something interesting with the system instead of just throwing the system on to whatever idea the game is about.

 

[Skywalker]

I would suggest Hearts of Wulin if you like wuxia. Great example of how a few simple powerful moves can support an entire genre.

For something with a more complex ruleset, but still able to provide focussed support for a broad style of play, you could check out Root. Leaving aside the woodland animals of the IP, it can do pretty much most low magic fantasy settings where the PCs are troubleshooters.

 

[yosemitemike]

I do like a wuxia game.

 

[Skywalker]

I do like a wuxia game.

Hearts of Wulin has a focus on the drama found in wuxia, unlike most wuxia RPGs that focus on the technical aspects of martial arts. But if that’s something you are good with, Hearts is fantastic.

 

[TristramEvans]

I read a few PBTA games, including the original Apocalypse World, but the only one I played was Dungeon World.

What I did not like was...

1) Player-facing only rolls. I've never liked this concept. In-game it felt like I was playing a different game than the GM, and it made opponents feel artificial.

2) "Moves" - this artificial construct creating an extra layer between role-playing and the rules. For players, it's simply annoying, but for GMs they are like handcuffs to try and force the GM to run the game the way the author wants. The authors of PBTA games seem to see the GM as ideally a programmable robot.

and...that's it really, Just those two things, excluding stuff specific to single PBTA games (and just sorta the general tendency of PBTA games to favour a "Narrative approach" to mechanics). But since at least one of those is intrinsic to the concept, this isn't a "quick houserule fix", the PBTA games simply aren't for me.

 

[Skywalker]

2) "Moves" - this artificial construct creating an extra layer between role-playing and the rules. For players, it's simply annoying, but for GMs they are like handcuffs to try and force the GM to run the game the way the author wants. The authors of PBTA games seem to see the GM as ideally a programmable robot.

That was one of the main reasons I initially bounced off PbtA hard. However, it doesn’t prove to be the case once you get some play experience. GM moves are generally pretty broad and it’s hard to find a situation where what a GM would do wouldn't fit into them.

The main advantage of GM Moves is that they provide a shorthand for GM advice that is much more usable at the table.

Overall, PbtA actually gives the GM far more discretion than other narrative systems. I even find that the GM Moves allow the GM even greater flexibility and discretion than most traditional RPGs as on a miss the GM effectively gets to do a bunch of things that may not even directly relate to the roll made. I find it’s much easier to make PCs’ life more complicated in PbtA than a trad game and that is one of the main reasons it is my preferred system as GM these days tbh.

The playing facing nature of the system plays into this somewhat too, as GM moves generally happen as a response to what players are doing, so it can feel less arbitrary if done right.

 

[Fenris-77]

The GM moves don't prevent you from doing anything, they're just a set of precepts to help focus the GMs decision making.

 

[TristramEvans]

The GM moves don't prevent you from doing anything

well they prevent not having to use moves. Or, you can, but at that point why are you playing PBTA

It's like an apple pie if you don't like apples

 

[Fenris-77]

well they prevent not having to use moves. Or, you can, but at that point why are you playing PBTA

It's like an apple pie if you don't like apples

Well, first off, not everyone has to like everything, so there's that. As for the moves that's just the GM 'doing something''. It's not any different than what GMs do in any other game except that the things are categorized and given names. My personal experience with PbtA is that this idea really just focused and sharpened what I was already doing as a GM. That does not mean that everyone has to have my experience or they're 'doing it wrong' though.

 

[TristramEvans]

Well, first off, not everyone has to like everything, so there's that.

yeah, hence this thread

 

[PolarBlues]

1) Player-facing only rolls. I've never liked this concept. In-game it felt like I was playing a different game than the GM, and it made opponents feel artificial.

2) "Moves" - this artificial construct creating an extra layer between role-playing and the rules. For players, it's simply annoying, but for GMs they are like handcuffs to try and force the GM to run the game the way the author wants. The authors of PBTA games seem to see the GM as ideally a programmable robot.

My hesitancy over PbtA, from a GM point of view comes from a different direction.

I love running player-facing systems. I've been a fan of player-facing mechanics before the term player-facing was a thing. It is one of the aspects of ICONS, when it first game out, that drew me to the game. I actually mildly resent having to make rolls when I GM.

I am neutral about Moves. I'd have to try it out from the GM point of view.

What I already know does not suit my GMing style is the "yes, but" style range of outcomes.

The sort of game flow when you have basically binary outcomes from tests goes something like this:

1. Player proposes an action
2. Conversation between GM and player about things such as this means, what to roll, potentially intended effect or consequences.
3. Dice Roll
4. Outcome

When I GM I tend to put a lot of effort on stage 2 Conversation, holding back any dice rolls until we are clear what the potential outcomes mean. In the early 2000s there was a lot of talk in setting the stakes before the dice rolls in the Forge circles. I may not do this quite so explicitly but that is pretty much part of my method.

WIth none binary outcomes from tests, the game flow is more like this:

1. Player proposes an action
2. Conversation between GM and player about things such as this means, what to roll, potentially intended effect or consequences.
3. Dice Roll
4. Conversation between GM and player about actual effect or actual consequences.
5. Outcome

I find that by adding a "Conversation" step between the Dice Roll and Outcome stages, the dramatic impact of the dice roll is somewhat lost. The dice does not have the final word any more. Even after the dice results are known, no one knows what it means exactly.

You need another round of Conversation to work that out. In juridic terms, the dice are the jury that come back with a verdict, but it is the judge afterwards that sets the sentence, and the judge still has a lot of latitude in setting the sentence.

Bear in mind I am a soft GM. I don't find it easy to put the boot in (even in a fun way). As such I need the system and dice to play bad cop to my good cop act. Reintroducing the human element after the dice as spoken undermines this good cop/bad cop routine.

I suppose there is nothing stopping discussing the potential "Yes buts" and "No ands" from PtbA will be before each dice roll, but I don't think that is how it is or even is meant to be played. I think that passing the authority from the system/dice roll back to the GM/players to decide the "sentence" is part of the design goals.

 

[Skywalker]

Yeah, PbtA doesn’t push negative consequences on to the results of failed dice rolls. GM moves on a failed roll can even include positive consequences, though with unintended or unforeseen effects.

In PbtA, negative consequences are mostly determined by the players. The more the PCs move forward, the more they risk the negative consequences. As a GM I much prefer players to be the author of the complications their PCs face as it invests the players into that side of their PC and creates a less adversarial relationship with the GM.

 

[PolarBlues]

Yeah, PbtA doesn’t push negative consequences on to the results of failed dice rolls. GM moves on a failed roll can even include positive consequences, though with unintended or unforeseen effects.

In PbtA, negative consequences are mostly determined by the players. The more the PCs move forward, the more they risk the negative consequences. As a GM I much prefer players to be the author of the complications their PCs face as it invests the players into that side of their PC and creates a less adversarial relationship with the GM.

I don't mind so much getting the players involved in deciding the consequences, I just prefer the potential consequence be known before the dice are rolled.

Discuss, roll dice, bang! action resolved, move on.

That feels very different to me from

Discuss, roll dice, discuss some more to resolve action.

I guess the former is inefficient in that you spend time thinking about stuff that won't happen, but I feel it is more impactful.

 

[Skywalker]

There isn’t really much discussion after the rolling of dice in PbtA though. The author of the result should be clear. For a hit it is the player and for a miss it is the GM.

You can get some discussion on a 7-9, but that’s not common and is limited. The Defy Danger move, where the GM offers a hard choice, is perhaps the most common example, but even then it’s clear it is the GM who presents the choice and the player gets to make the choice. There is no real discussion to soften the die results.

 

[TristramEvans]

That was one of the main reasons I initially bounced off PbtA hard. However, it doesn’t prove to be the case once you get some play experience. GM moves are generally pretty broad and it’s hard to find a situation where what a GM would do wouldn't fit into them.

The main advantage of GM Moves is that they provide a shorthand for GM advice that is much more usable at the table.

Overall, PbtA actually gives the GM far more discretion than other narrative systems. I even find that the GM Moves allow the GM even greater flexibility and discretion than most traditional RPGs as on a miss the GM effectively gets to do a bunch of things that may not even directly relate to the roll made. I find it’s much easier to make PCs’ life more complicated in PbtA than a trad game and that is one of the main reasons it is my preferred system as GM these days tbh.

The playing facing nature of the system plays into this somewhat too, as GM moves generally happen as a response to what players are doing, so it can feel less arbitrary if done right.

I may perhaps not explained the nature of my objections well enough. Let me emphasize the caveat that I am not making any attempt at an objective critique of the mechanics, I am just as much talking about my personal preferences, which after a lifetime of gaming I know quite well and are laser-focused as to what I want from an RPG (to a degree admittedly more severe than I assume the vast majority of gamers). There is always the implied YMMV.

And, for context, the playstyle that I prefer - and hence the lens through which I view game rules - is pretty nicely summed up by this passage from WFRP...



So when I described PBTA Moves as " this artificial construct creating an extra layer between role-playing and the rules", I meant the very act of fitting a GM ruling into a move is like this ...extra step. I was going to say "unnecessary extra step but I got the phrase " a shorthand for GM advice' stuck in my craw. I'm going to offer the alternative "Codified GM Advice" instead as Moves can be viewed as "mechanizing advice". But in doing so it is no longer "advice", which a GM can take or leave at their discretion, it is stricture. 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.

Also viewed through my style of GMing the phrase "I even find that the GM Moves allow the GM even greater flexibility and discretion than most traditional RPGs as on a miss the GM effectively gets to do a bunch of things that may not even directly relate to the roll made" inapplicable in regards to the implications of the phrase "[the GM] gets to do". I easily accede that Moves might suggest occurrences that a may otherwise not occurred to the GM, but as such it serves the same purpose as an event table, with the difference being the latter is a tool at the GM's disposal while the former is a rule that the GM engages with.

In the same way the phrase "Overall, PbtA actually gives the GM far more discretion than other narrative systems" is, from my perspective, damning with faint praise. It's like saying to me "the least sour type of pickle", if I stated that I don't like pickles.

So, unfortunately, the primary "feature" of the PBTA system is something that I find intrusive and unnecessary at best. I like the way I GM, it's what's funnest for me, and I've been lucky enough to easily find players in every place that I've lived that enjoy it to, so there is no motivation to adapt to the way a PBTA author would prefer I GM. And I'm happy to acknowledge that for those who don't mind adapting their GM style or they prefer a style that more closely matches that of the PBTA authors, Moves would feel more like support than restriction.

What I already know does not suit my GMing style is the "yes, but" style range of outcomes.

The sort of game flow when you have basically binary outcomes from tests goes something like this:

1. Player proposes an action
2. Conversation between GM and player about things such as this means, what to roll, potentially intended effect or consequences.
3. Dice Roll
4. Outcome

When I GM I tend to put a lot of effort on stage 2 Conversation, holding back any dice rolls until we are clear what the potential outcomes mean. In the early 2000s there was a lot of talk in setting the stakes before the dice rolls in the Forge circles. I may not do this quite so explicitly but that is pretty much part of my method.

WIth none binary outcomes from tests, the game flow is more like this:

1. Player proposes an action
2. Conversation between GM and player about things such as this means, what to roll, potentially intended effect or consequences.
3. Dice Roll
4. Conversation between GM and player about actual effect or actual consequences.
5. Outcome

I find that by adding a "Conversation" step between the Dice Roll and Outcome stages, the dramatic impact of the dice roll is somewhat lost. The dice does not have the final word any more. Even after the dice results are known, no one knows exactly what it means exactly.

You need another round of Conversation to work that out. In juridic terms, the dice are the jury that come back with a verdict, but it is the judge afterwards that sets the sentence, and the judge still has a lot of latitude in setting the sentence.

Bear in mind I am a soft GM. I don't find it easy to put the boot in (even in a fun way). As such I need the system and dice to play bad cop to my good cop act. Reintroducing the human element after the dice as spoken undermines this good cop/bad cop routine.

I suppose there is nothing stopping discussing the potential "Yes buts" and "No ands" from PtbA will be before each dice roll, but I don't think that is how it is or even is meant to be played. I think that passing the authority from the system/dice roll back to the GM/players to decide the "sentence" is part of the design goals.

I think that is a good example of what I meant by the "narrative approach to design" I alluded to, and reading your description there I couldn't help think that it sounds like the game is trying to accomplish the same thing as The Story Engine, but is less elegantly designed (which is amusing considering the author's credentials).

The Story Engine, btw (just to give the thread a shock) is a game I love, while simultaneously being (along with the wonderful Baron Munchausen) my go-to example of a Storygame during the Post Forge Wars that swept the forums not a score of years back.

And now I suggest anyone with an interest in the rarer vintages of system design take a look at the Story Engine (there's a free version called "Story Bones"...somewhere online), and imagine the PBTA structure of playbooks and moves integrated with the Story Engine as it's base instead of the rather traditional underlying PBTA system. I think people who do like PBTA will find that the Story Engine will elegantly compliment the PBTA structure and offer a more satisfying narrative experience overall while simultaneously streamlining the rules engagement structure. And even those who aren't a fan of PBTA can perhaps still admire the harmonious fit-to-purpose.

 

[PolarBlues]

There isn’t really much discussion after the rolling of dice in PbtA though. The author of the result should be clear. For a hit it is the player and for a miss it is the GM.

You can get some discussion on a 7-9, but that’s not common and is limited. The Defy Danger move, where the GM offers a hard choice, is perhaps the most common example, but even then it’s clear it is the GM who presents the choice and the player gets to make the choice. There is no real discussion to soften the die results.

We can replace "discussion" with "discretion". Whether it is purely GM discretion or a more consensual agreement around reached across table, what we are looking at is a layer of interpretation of the outcome that occurs after the dice roll.

What I am saying is I prefer the layer of interpretation to occur before the dice roll because:
1. It is more dramatic. There is no pause after the dice roll for deliberation/interpretation
2. It give the system greater authority - it allows me to lean on the system to play the bad cop

This isn't specific to PbtA game. "Yes, but/ No and" style mechanics have become vastly popular over the last decade. That many players can't be wrong. All I am saying is that it doesn't suit my stlye of GMing.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, PbtA doesn’t push negative consequences on to the results of failed dice rolls. GM moves on a failed roll can even include positive consequences, though with unintended or unforeseen effects.

In PbtA, negative consequences are mostly determined by the players. The more the PCs move forward, the more they risk the negative consequences. As a GM I much prefer players to be the author of the complications their PCs face as it invests the players into that side of their PC and creates a less adversarial relationship with the GM.

This isn't my understanding. The GM can make both soft and hard moves on failed and partial rolls and the players aren't primarily in charge of that decision. There doesn't have to be a move, but that's often where it will get made. Rather my own words I'll just post a snippet from MotW that explains it clearly:



It might be true that the players are in charge or negative outcomes in some iterations of PbtA, but that's simply not true generally. I'd be interested to know what game or games you're referencing your quote though and how we ended up with such different opinions.

Edit: It may be that you're talking about making possible risk clear before a roll, which is important, but also isn't the primary way consequences happen. If that were true the players would always know everything before it happened, which is an odd way to play.

 

[Skywalker]

We can replace "discussion" with "discretion". Whether it is purely GM discretion or a more consensual agreement around reached across table, what we are looking at is a layer of interpretation of the outcome that occurs after the dice roll.

That makes more sense. I agree with you in that case. PbtA breaks the discretion down into a series of smaller steps, with greater certainty over who authors what and when, rather than having it negotiated up front prior to the roll. The player knows the process that will be initiated when they narrate the trigger, but the process and die roll then breaks that process down.

I can see how this may not be to one’s preference. The lack of modifiers and the way it allocates authorship can lack upfront certainty and often speeds the dice rolling process quite dramatically. It also supports PbtA’s “play to find out what happens” principle in that in creates a moment where both GM and player take their hands off the controls and be bound to the agreed process once it’s triggered. I have found it liberating as a GM personally, so it works well for me. But I can see that it’s not for everyone.

 

[Skywalker]

This isn't my understanding. The GM can make both soft and hard moves on failed and partial rolls and the players aren't primarily in charge of that decision.

Yes, but every GM move is triggered by a PC action. With the “Yes but” system the more the PCs strive to get what they want the more likely they will trigger a GM move on a 6-. As such, the PCs’ actions do influence to a large extent the level of complication faced, even if the GM authors the exact nature of such complication.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes, but every GM move is triggered by a PC action. With the “Yes but” system the more the PCs strive to get what they want the more likely they will trigger a GM move on a 6-. As such, the PCs’ actions do influence to a large extent the level of complication faced, even if the GM authors the exact nature of such complication.

They are triggered both by action and inaction. In other words by player interaction with the diegetic frame, just like any RPG. Its not like nothing happens if the players just sit there. Yes but is one way to handle partial roles, of course, a very necessary one, but it also can't be the only one.

 

[Skywalker]

They are triggered both by action and inaction. In other words by player interaction with the diegetic frame, just like any RPG. Its not like nothing happens if the players just sit there. Yes but is one way to handle partial roles, of course, a very necessary one, but it also can't be the only one.

There are very different moves done in these cases though, explicitly so in most PbtA RPGs.

 

[Fenris-77]

There are very different moves done in these cases though, explicitly so in most PbtA RPGs.

Um, no, they aren't. It would depend on the situation. More importantly, the basic list of Keeper moves obviously includes a bunch of options that aren't going to be discussed before hand. See below:



Some of these are telegraphed (quite explicitly) but some of them also obviously aren't. This list is also not a list of things that only happen when the players fail a roll, but anytime the GM needs to act for whatever reason (as is made clear in the first sentence). I'm using MotW as the exemplar here, but this list of moves is bog standard for PbtA.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

2) "Moves" - this artificial construct creating an extra layer between role-playing and the rules. For players, it's simply annoying, but for GMs they are like handcuffs to try and force the GM to run the game the way the author wants. The authors of PBTA games seem to see the GM as ideally a programmable robot.

I think that's why I find the PbtA games I'm most comfortable with are the ones with a big focus on player interaction and possibly PvP. Being largely in the referee position of adjucating player actions is something I'm personally a lot more comfortable with compared to thinking about what move is an appropriate response.

I get on better with BitD although when GMing it I'm still very aware of being outside my standard comfort zone (high improv, loose and fast approach to rules etc.)

 

[Skywalker]

Um, no, they aren't. It would depend on the situation. More importantly, the basic list of Keeper moves obviously includes a bunch of options that aren't going to be discussed before hand. See below:

View attachment 64745

Some of these are telegraphed (quite explicitly) but some of them also obviously aren't. This list is also not a list of things that only happen when the players fail a roll, but anytime the GM needs to act for whatever reason (as is made clear in the first sentence). I'm using MotW as the exemplar here, but this list of moves is bog standard for PbtA.

MotW is a very early example of PbtA. Many more recent iterations do provide clear guidance that a GM move from a golden opportunity should be a softer move and one from a 6- should be a harder move.

There remains a level of discretion to match the reaction narratively, so there is not a hard dividing line, but the triggering and types of GM moves are heavily influenced by PC actions. Some PbtA RPGs, like Legacy IIRC have even renamed GM moves as Reactions.

 

[Fenris-77]

MotW is a very early example of PbtA. Many more recent iterations do provide clear guidance that a GM move from a golden opportunity should be a softer move and one from a 6- should be a harder move.

There remains a level of discretion to match the reaction narratively, so there is not a hard dividing line, but the triggering and types of GM moves are heavily influenced by PC actions.

Your argument from history isn't carrying any water here. Just because your example is from a more recent game it doesn't make it any more illustrative. That said, the above isn't isolate to newer games, it's pretty standard for PbtA. My point was that simply because that is the usual approach doesn't mean the GM is hamstrung or limited in anyway. The GM is always free to make whatever move the fiction seems to demand.

Edit: This is also somewhat far afield from your original notion that moves are primarily discussed before hand and a result of yes but adjudication. The players still aren't primarily in charge of negative outcomes.

 

[Skywalker]

Your argument from history isn't carrying any water here. Just because your example is from a more recent game it doesn't make it any more illustrative. That said, the above isn't isolate to newer games, it's pretty standard for PbtA. My point was that simply because that is the usual approach doesn't mean the GM is hamstrung or limited in anyway. The GM is always free to make whatever move the fiction seems to demand.

I disagree. This is not an isolated concept. It is contained in the bulk of PbtA RPGs and has become more explicit as the system has developed. This is because though a GM has a discretion to choose any move, if it is done so without connection to what triggered it (which is always a player driven trigger) then it leads to unsatisfactory play. The capricious use of hard moves on golden opportunities is a classic example of a common early complaint of PbtA and the system as a whole has evolved passed that issue and resolved it.

I would argue further to say that the principle of making a move as fiction demands has always implicitly covered this concept as well. It’s just wasn’t explained in early iterations of the system. But it was there. For example, IIRC Dungeon World Guide discusses this concept.

Edit: This is also somewhat far afield from your original notion that moves are primarily discussed before hand and a result of yes but adjudication. The players still aren't primarily in charge of negative outcomes.

The “Yes but” approach is intrinsically linked to the notion that as the PCs drive forward they risk more complication.

 

[Fenris-77]

So when I say this isn't an isolated idea and then you disagree with me and say it isn't an isolated idea, what exactly do you mean? It sounds like we're both saying it isn't an isolated idea. Frankly, I don't think you read my post very carefully, but the source of the confusion could be from somewhere else too I suppose.

Also, there isn't a 'new' approach to PbtA that focuses on the idea that as the PCs drive forward they risk more complication, that's just how PbtA works and has always worked. That is not that same as saying that the PCs are in charge of the nature or specifics of the complications in question however, which isn't true of PbtA generally at any point, although it's almost undoubtedly true of some individual games.

 

[Skywalker]

Also, there isn't a 'new' approach to PbtA that focuses on the idea that as the PCs drive forward they risk more complication, that's just how PbtA works and has always worked. That is not that same as saying that the PCs are in charge of the nature or specifics of the complications in question however, which isn't true of PbtA generally at any point, although it's almost undoubtedly true of some individual games.

I think you may be reading what I originally said too specifically as well, creating a confusion. I never suggested that the players choose the GM moves themselves. My comment was intended to be that GM moves are triggered from PC action and they are influenced by the nature of those actions. However, it is a fundamental part of PbtA that the GM has the discretion to determine how the GM move is specifically implemented though.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think you may be reading what I originally said too specifically as well, creating a confusion. I never suggested that the players choose the GM moves themselves. My comment was intended to be that GM moves are triggered from PC action and they are influenced by the nature of those actions. However, it is a fundamental part of PbtA that the GM has the discretion to determine how the GM move is specifically implemented though.

Hah, then we aren't really arguing. Were slow but we get there.'

 

[Skywalker]

Going back to PolarBlues point which I was responding to, the above suits my GM style. I have found exercise my discretion more freeing in PbtA as by the time I do so, it’s clear the players have decided that they are prepared to accept the complication that I decide upon. It reduces any “discussion” or negotiation of die rolls significantly IME.

 

[Skywalker]

Hah, then we aren't really arguing. Were slow but we get there.'

Yeah. Sorry about that. I think my comments read more clearly as a direct response to PolarBlues but are a little confusing when read in isolation. That isn’t helped by the confusion we had over his use of “discussion” in place of discretion. Hopefully my post above helps explain that some more.

 

[yosemitemike]

The GM is always free to make whatever move the fiction seems to demand.

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.

 

[carpocratian]

I really dislike PbtA games, too, for some of the reasons TristramEvans notes. In addition...

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.

I have been playing and GMing a long time (probably longer than most PbtA designers/authors), and I know what works best in the types of games that I like to run. My players trust me, I'm fair, I'm consistent, I'm very good at improv (one of my strongest GM traits), and I adapt easily to whatever direction the players end up taking in my games. When it comes to game mechanics, I need a basic task resolution system and a set of character traits of some sort. Everything else in a game book is either icing on the cake (if I like it) or irrelevant to my game (if I don't).

PbtA games, and a lot of "narrative" ones in general, often assume that the GM needs or wants help running the game. That's fine, for people who like that. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure that a lot of people find it useful. For me, though, it isn't.

 

[Skywalker]

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.

In actual play, did you ever hit a situation where what you wanted to do something that wasn’t covered by a move? It’s natural for an experienced GM to react negatively to the idea of a list of GM moves. However, wanting to do something not on the list doesn’t happens all that often in practice and if it does, it is signalling an issue early. I have found that it generally only happens when my instincts as a GM are off, such as when I look to do something as a GM to effectively neutralises a PC action rather than build on it. And the GM move list communicates much more clearly than paragraphs of GM guidance so that I can reexamine and adjust quickly.

It’s also worth noting that every PbtA will survive if you ignore the GM moves list. It’s a robust enough system that it’s effectively not compulsory. However, the game will be worse if for doing this as the GM move list is generally great advice tailored to the game in question.

 

[Voros]

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.

Do you? A few games seem to suggest this but very few have any requirement the GM has to stick to the Moves.

 

[thebigh]

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.

Zugzwang is a massive pain in the butt.

 

[ffilz]

The big one that gets me (beyond the fact that I have diminishing interest in trying out new games these days) is the player facing aspect where the players roll all the dice. I like rolling dice and it makes me feel like I'm playing the game too. I think there are other aspects that would make me less likely to enjoy it, but that would be a big one.

 

[yosemitemike]

In actual play, did you ever hit a situation where what you wanted to do something that wasn’t covered by a move? It’s natural for an experienced GM to react negatively to the idea of a list of GM moves.

I have spent time puzzling through the list of moves trying to figure out which one applies that what I want to do while the players waited.

Do you? A few games seem to suggest this but very few have any requirement the GM has to stick to the Moves.

For the ones I have run, everything in framed in terms of moves.

 

[Skywalker]

I have spent time puzzling through the list of moves trying to figure out which one applies that what I want to do while the players waited.

That will reduce after a couple of plays. I find it works best to go with my gut and refer to the list for inspiration or when you have a feeling your action isn’t a good one. As has been said, PbtA is a robust system and nothing breaks if you happen to do something outside of the move list. So don’t sweat every GM move.

 

[hawkeyefan]

many folks I've spoken with about issues with PbtA and similar games tend to attribute their dissatisfaction to constraint. I think often this is attributed to the moves, but I don’t think that’s exactly it. Honestly, the GM moves tend to cover pretty much anything the GM might do.

I think it’s often more about when GM moves can be made. The game places limits on GM action, and that doesn’t sit well with many GMs, especially folks who’ve been doing it a long time. It’s often viewed as trying to restore trust (or prevent mistrust), but I don’t think that’s really it. I think what AW set out to do was place equal importance on the game as the game world.

I mean, we don’t struggle at all with the idea of the players only being able to act at certain times or in certain ways. Those constraints are there to facilitate play. It’s the same with the constraints on the GM. It limits what the GM can do and when. This makes the game more structured, which facilitates play. It allows the players to understand the stakes and when consequences happen and so on.

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.

So what's a PbtA game that I might like.

I’d recommend Stonetop. It’s got some trad leanings in that there is a defined setting with details established ahead of play. The GM role is very similar, and if you deviate from standard PbtA type moves, the game will continue along just fine. The player side moves are also very much in the vein of character abilities and the basic moves are mostly simple, such as “Clash” for a melee attack and “Seek Insight” to try and notice details or hidden things. The core stats are the classic six from D&D and there are hit points and other familiar elements.

It’s a very solid take on PbtA, building upon Dungeon World, and improving it, in my opinion.