Why I don't like PbtA

[chuckdee]

threadcrapping in the thread about disliking PBTA because that's something they can't abide?

I haven't seen any of the responses as threadcrapping, but rather discussing these weaknesses. Is this supposed to be an echo chamber of people just saying why they hate it? I didn't get that feeling, but if so, I'll stop giving my perspective on it.

 

[Sharrow]

The funny thing is a lot of "classic" players assumed he was talking about them, when he was really railing against Vampire/linear games more than anything.

But, yeah. That whole thing (among others) really made it clear how bad at communicating he was.

He pretty aggressively put down old-style simulationist games/gamers as well. Actually, he was fairly unpleasant to about all the old-school styles of play/game design, and dismissive of a lot of people's actual reported play experience.

I struggled through his initial essays, and the followups, and I'd like those hours back, thanks.

 

[burbles]

There's butter on your shirt-cuffs, and, I assume, your cuff-links. Cuff-links are enough of a footery fuck-around without spreading them with churned bovine secretion, or excretion, or dairy product, as it's called in real RPGs. So you've got slippery cuff-links and buttered up holes my friend. Spread all over. And I'm just standing here, oiled, twitching. Buttered.

Your move, punk.

A new thing I learnt at the Pub

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER jump in and start reading a thread without ALL the backstory!

I thought that I could start at page 5 'cos of this thread's apparent popularity and work out what was happening from the posts.

I got to this one and had to check that I hadn't somehow clicked on a link that redirected me to some S&M site or something?!

I'VE LEARNt MY LESSON - Never again!!!!!

 

[TristramEvans]

I haven't seen any of the responses as threadcrapping, but rather discussing these weaknesses. Is this supposed to be an echo chamber of people just saying why they hate it? I didn't get that feeling, but if so, I'll stop giving my perspective on it.

No, or Skywalker would have gotten booted on the first page. It's really what I woke up to today in the last few pages, where the conversation shifted to making blanket statements about how bad certain groups of gamers are

 

[chuckdee]

No, or Skywalker would have gotten booted on the first page. It's really what I woke up to today in the last few pages, where the conversation shifted to making blanket statements about how bad certain groups of gamers are

Thanks for the response. And I think Skywalker is posting a middle of the road approach - posting about what he doesn't like about it quite a bit!

 

[chuckdee]

At the risk of reviving some old Forge terminology (or at least terminology that was used at the Forge), I guess the distinction I am making is between Fortune-At-The-End and Fortune-In-The-Middle. I am more comfortable with Fortune-At-The-End.

That said Fortune-At-The-End does not excluding failing forward or succeeding at a cost. Nor does it determine these decisions are taken by the GM or more collaboratively. All the changes is when, in the sequence of task resolution, these things are decided.

If I'm understanding Fortune-At-The-End and your statement about not excluding Failing Forward or Success at a Cost, I'm still not understanding the difference in what you're saying and the way I've understood PbtA. In the narrative, you state that you're trying to do X (which I'm assuming has success parameters, i.e. hitting someone), you roll, and that roll indicates success, failure, or success with a cost/failing forward. You clarify your choices, and narrate in the case of success or success at a cost, or the GM narrates in the case of failure.

 

[Sharrow]

Valid. But, to be clear, my “being cut off” example, above, was for a failed roll on a charge, not a partial success (that was what I intended anyway).

Ah, I misunderstood. For a fail, that makes sense.

 

[Fenris-77]

 

[yosemitemike]

In Dungeon World, "Defy Danger" move does not specify which attribute to use.

In games like that, players will fit their description of what they are doing to fit whatever their best attribute is.

I highly recommend Sword World 2.5. There is an excellent ongoing fan translation out there and its a fascinating system for D&D style fantasy.

There's one thing people should know about Sword World going in. It's a *massive* game. At first blush, it looks like this really complicated massive thing. It's really not though. The actual system is fairly simple. Much of the game is actually detailed explanations and lengthy examples of play. Lots of Western ttrpgs have examples of play but Japanese ttrpgs take it to a whole other level. They have extensive examples called replays. For example, out of 36 pages in the GM section of Golden Sky Stories, 26 are taken up by examples of play. Sword World really wants to help you and make sure you know exactly how everything is supposed to work. Maybe too much.

 

[Fenris-77]

In games like that, players will fit their description of what they are doing to fit whatever their best attribute is.

Players do this in every game, whether its about best stats, best skills, or whatever. That does not mean that the GM has to allow it. Personally, I'll just ignore this kind of angling when the declared action is obviously out of line with what's reasonable and tell the player which stat to use. That said, there's also nothing wrong with a player playing to the character's strengths so it's a bit of a balancing act IMO.

 

[yosemitemike]

Players do this in every game, whether its about best stats, best skills, or whatever. That does not mean that the GM has to allow it. Personally, I'll just ignore this kind of angling when the declared action is obviously out of line with what's reasonable and tell the player which stat to use. That said, there's also nothing wrong with a player playing to the character's strengths so it's a bit of a balancing act IMO.

It also create a constant push-pull headache at the table as players try to argue for using their best attribute every time they do anything.

 

[Fenris-77]

It also create a constant push-pull headache at the table as players try to argue for using their best attribute every time they do anything.

Yup, I find in most games this calms down after a session or two once the table falls into a good rhythm. Sometimes that requires a firm GMing hand but I'm OK with that.

 

[Skywalker]

Hearts of Wulin has a nice take on that problem. You can apply any of your attributes to a roll, but if you fail one of the GM Moves is to neutralise the attribute in question. Essentially, if you mash your strongest attribute the probabilities in PbtA will see you harm yourself more (which is great as it encourages dramatic and complex stories).

This is particularly fun as every PC has 1 attribute which they fight with. Their chi is blocked, they have hit a deep sadness, they suffered a debilitating injury etc. If that is neutralised you aren’t able to win any combat, so they now have to find other ways to resolve conflict or initiate a game loop to heal that attribute, which in itself is fun.

 

[PolarBlues]

If I'm understanding Fortune-At-The-End and your statement about not excluding Failing Forward or Success at a Cost, I'm still not understanding the difference in what you're saying and the way I've understood PbtA. In the narrative, you state that you're trying to do X (which I'm assuming has success parameters, i.e. hitting someone), you roll, and that roll indicates success, failure, or success with a cost/failing forward. You clarify your choices, and narrate in the case of success or success at a cost, or the GM narrates in the case of failure.

I can draw from my experience playing Avatar. Out of combat (*), I describe my action/select my Move "Rely on my Skills and Training", roll the dice and get a result between 7 and 9.

The dice have spoken but at the moment don't know what this means. I know I succeeded, but I don't know to what extent or what sort of complication will ensue. I wait as the GM decides this, or perhaps crowdsources ideas for the complication. The action is not resolved. The dramatic impact of the dice roll is deflated.

Switching to a Fortune-At-The-End approach, the GM would decide (or crowdsource) the potential complication before the dice are rolled. That way when dice comes up as "7" there is no delay or initial ambiguity about its significance. The GM may narrate the outcome, but it is just description, all material decisions have been made and we promptly move on to the next scene.

I see the flaw in this, as I mentioned before, it requires pondering potential outcomes that may never happen and could mean that overall slower action resolution. but I think it does matter from a game rhythm point of view, not just how long the action resolution process takes but where within that process the slow down occurs.

Any that's how I see it, and I think I've gone in may more detail to describe what is a personal preference; a preference which I feel makes at least as much sense as someone saying "I don't run games with player facing mechanic because I like to roll dice".

(*) In Avatar when in combat, a player does not know which Moves he will be able to do until after he rolls the dice which makes it an even more of a Fortune-in-the-Middle sort of game.

 

[AsenRG]

As Peterson's extensive review of early rpg play as reported in the APAs in The Elusive Shift shows, neither player input nor freeform play are remotely new nor 'foreign' to rpgs.

Strange that to this day some insist on treating them as either new or foreign ideas somehow being forced onto rpgs.

No, you're getting that ass-backwards. Neither of them is new, we know that. Neither is foreign. But would you say that both are appropriate for all playstyles?
Because I'd say they're very much not, and might actively work against the goals of some playstyles.

And in this case, people who like those playstyles would be right to avoid games that rely on them, just as a player that likes the "build" aspect of PF2 would be right to avoid Wushu...

The fact that few today have an issue when the exact same ideas were promoted by Erick Wujcik or Greg Stafford is telling.

Where, exactly, does the GM turn to a player and asks "So, Jimmy, you made your History roll - tell me what's Sir Lancelot going to encounter in that family crypt?"
Likewise for Amber?

(Odds are good that if there is such advice, I'd have ignored it. But I'd like to know that I'm doing the ignoring...)

My point is that IC is sometimes used for how you speak:

"I ask the bartender if what he knows of the route to the adventure."

vs.

"I'll have a whiskey. babble babble babble... So what have you heard about the Old South Road? Are the bandits acting up again?"

In the first, the player is stating the information the player wants. In the second, the character is speaking and working up to asking a question. Many would call the first out of character and the second in character. But neither is mechanics. Sure, the first is treating things a bit more a "moves" in a game, but it still is different than a third option:

"Rolled a modified 25 for my Information Gathering skill. What do I find out?"

OK. We don't use IC in this way on my table, but I've encountered such usage.

Well, I ain't got a better idea, so I'd stick to my usage and wait until we get a better term, then possibly complain people are using different terms...

Perhaps that is tribalism in action?

Oh, definitely - I mean, there was a "best examples of PbtA" thread on the front page, but most of the PbtA players are here telling those that don't like it why they're wrong...

I can draw from my experience playing Avatar. Out of combat (*), I describe my action/select my Move "Rely on my Skills and Training", roll the dice and get a result between 7 and 9.

The dice have spoken but at the moment don't know what this means. I know I succeeded, but I don't know to what extent or what sort of complication will ensue. I wait as the GM decides this, or perhaps crowdsources ideas for the complication. The action is not resolved. The dramatic impact of the dice roll is deflated.

Switching to a Fortune-At-The-End approach, the GM would decide (or crowdsource) the potential complication before the dice are rolled. That way when dice comes up as "7" there is no delay or initial ambiguity about its significance. The GM may narrate the outcome, but it is just description, all material decisions have been made and we promptly move on to the next scene.

I see the flaw in this, as I mentioned before, it requires pondering potential outcomes that may never happen and could mean that overall slower action resolution. but I think it does matter from a game rhythm point of view, not just how long the action resolution process takes but where within that process the slow down occurs.

Any that's how I see it, and I think I've gone in may more detail to describe what is a personal preference; a preference which I feel makes at least as much sense as someone saying "I don't run games with player facing mechanic because I like to roll dice".

(*) In Avatar when in combat, a player does not know which Moves he will be able to do until after he rolls the dice which makes it an even more of a Fortune-in-the-Middle sort of game.

Frankly, I wouldn't like that. But then I generally prefer Fortune-in-the-Middle for speed of play combined with flexibility.
Besides, people presumably wouldn't give you different complications once the dice have fallen..

 

[cranebump]

Oh, definitely - I mean, there was a "best examples of PbtA" thread on the front page, but most of the PbtA players are here telling those that don't like it why they're wrong...

Yeah, sometimes knee jerk defense happens. But clarifying a misconception from someone who has less (or no) experience with the system isn’t nearly the same as telling someone they should like it. I think the former action sometimes gets confused with the latter, esp. when A: “PbtA mandates X!” B: “It actually works like this.” I mean, I can get my assumptions wrong and still not like the system. Anyhoo, I think that providing clarification based on actual experience is sometimes seen as trying to convince someone they’re wrong about their point of view, rather than the specific widget or feature they’re criticizing. I can’t actually recall anyone’s mind ever being changed due to a forum exchange. I’m surprised people still try.

 

[AsenRG]

Yeah, sometimes knee jerk defense happens. But clarifying a misconception from someone who has less (or no) experience with the system isn’t nearly the same as telling someone they should like it.

Sure. But telling people that "it's doing the same thing as those systems you play, but you don't like it because of it"...is.

So it also helps if you're able to get what are the actual problems people are seeing with the system...

I mean, I can get my assumptions wrong and still not like the system.

Oh, definitely. It has happened to me as well.

Anyhoo, I think that providing clarification based on actual experience is sometimes seen as trying to convince someone they’re wrong about their point of view, rather than the specific widget or feature they’re criticizing.

You're right, sometimes clarification is clarification...

And sometimes that cigar is trying to hint at something!

I can’t actually recall anyone’s mind ever being changed due to a forum exchange. I’m surprised people still try.

I can. In fact, I was persuaded to give (the old) Savage Worlds a try because of a forum discussion - during which I was pointed to other helpful materials that explained it better.

 

[DornKratz]

Moving the conversation a bit, how do you all feel about weak hit/partial success/success at a cost? Do you feel having more degrees of success reduces the number of rolls you make? Do you struggle to come up with complications? What kind of mental adjustment a GM coming from other systems needs to make to have a smooth session and not feel exhausted?

 

[Fenris-77]

Moving the conversation a bit, how do you all feel about weak hit/partial success/success at a cost? Do you feel having more degrees of success reduces the number of rolls you make? Do you struggle to come up with complications? What kind of mental adjustment a GM coming from other systems needs to make to have a smooth session and not feel exhausted?

Personally I love it and my use of the idea has spread well beyond PbtA and FitD play. I like how it propels the game forward and I like the emphasis the idea places on the decisions and actions of the character as the main engine for change in the game (as opposed to my own prepped ideas for example). I still prep of course, but I hold it very loosely.

 

[el_octogono]

Moving the conversation a bit, how do you all feel about weak hit/partial success/success at a cost? Do you feel having more degrees of success reduces the number of rolls you make? Do you struggle to come up with complications? What kind of mental adjustment a GM coming from other systems needs to make to have a smooth session and not feel exhausted?

I don't think it reduces dice rolling as PbtA games usually work with triggered moves, both player's and GM's. As a player I did find the game halting everytime to read the move, read the options, make choices and assign points to options. I do think it's a thing that goes away with familiarity.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Is the bread dude something like the gingerbread man? Catching him when he's all smeared in butter must be a stone cold bitch. Buttery shirt cuffs seem very reasonable in the circumstances.

IIRC, Bread Dudes featured prominently in The Sixth Sense: "I see bread people; I see them all the time." But they've been around forever. Here's a Baroque-era Bread Dude:

 

[RangerRupert]

IIRC, Bread Dudes featured prominently in The Sixth Sense: "I see bread people; I see them all the time." But they've been around forever. Here's a Baroque-era Bread Dude:

Make sure it's really bread.

Spoiler: naughtiness

 

[hawkeyefan]

Moving the conversation a bit, how do you all feel about weak hit/partial success/success at a cost? Do you feel having more degrees of success reduces the number of rolls you make? Do you struggle to come up with complications? What kind of mental adjustment a GM coming from other systems needs to make to have a smooth session and not feel exhausted?

I find that’s one of the key elements of PbtA style play. It’s not unique to the system, but it’s central to it.

I do find that it leads to fewer rolls overall. The trend I’ve noticed in these games is that each individual roll carries more weight. There’s never a roll where afterward, the game is in the exact same state it was in prior. A roll always triggers some kind of change. That tends to propel the game as things are always happening.

I think this is one of the big challenges with these games… learning to come up with complications/consequences as needed. This is where the GM Moves come in handy. I don’t tend to view them as strict lanes that must be used, but instead as ideas to lean on when I’m unsure of what would happen. When you’re running a fight scene and you don’t want to lean on damage alone, a glance at the GM moves can inspire. Ohh, separate them, that sounds good. “You swing your axe and cleave the goblin, but your follow through clips the support beam, and part of the roof collapses. You’re now blocked from the exit and your friends, with two more goblins to deal with.”

Now this isn’t something that a GM can’t do in other games, but in PbtA and similar games, it’s the system that prompts their occurrence. The GM has to get used to that and being ready to come up with them as needed. That’s quite a difference compared to how many games handle it, where a combat is all attack rolls and hits or misses and little else, and if something like the ceiling collapse were to happen, it would be because the GM decided it did. Having the system prompt this means that the GM isn't just narrating things the way they want.

 

[chuckdee]

I can draw from my experience playing Avatar. Out of combat (*), I describe my action/select my Move "Rely on my Skills and Training", roll the dice and get a result between 7 and 9.

I haven't had an opportunity to read Avatar yet - but most 7-9 have some sort of options there. Does this particular move not have that? Than this is pretty unique to that interpretation of the rules.

 

[AsenRG]

Moving the conversation a bit, how do you all feel about weak hit/partial success/success at a cost? Do you feel having more degrees of success reduces the number of rolls you make? Do you struggle to come up with complications? What kind of mental adjustment a GM coming from other systems needs to make to have a smooth session and not feel exhausted?

I was first introduced to the idea in...Talislanta or Traveller (success at 8 exactly was with complication, in MgT1e). Not sure which one. I've always liked it, overall.
As for reducing the number of rolls - no, I find that rolls are reduced faster by critical results IME! But it is fun, which is why I like it.

Now, the complications don't always make much in-game sense (depends strongly on the game), but that's the part where you interpret it more broadly...

 

[robiswrong]

I think this is one of the big challenges with these games… learning to come up with complications/consequences as needed. This is where the GM Moves come in handy. I don’t tend to view them as strict lanes that must be used, but instead as ideas to lean on when I’m unsure of what would happen. When you’re running a fight scene and you don’t want to lean on damage alone, a glance at the GM moves can inspire. Ohh, separate them, that sounds good. “You swing your axe and cleave the goblin, but your follow through clips the support beam, and part of the roof collapses. You’re now blocked from the exit and your friends, with two more goblins to deal with.”

Now this isn’t something that a GM can’t do in other games, but in PbtA and similar games, it’s the system that prompts their occurrence. The GM has to get used to that and being ready to come up with them as needed. That’s quite a difference compared to how many games handle it, where a combat is all attack rolls and hits or misses and little else.

Yup. In most games I run, I crib an appropriate set of GM Moves and keep them on a 3X5 as inspiration.

I think a lot of the pushback is to the idea that "you can do these things and only these things". Which I mean seems like a harsh reading, and frankly isn't really much of a restriction anyway. I can't think of a lot of times where I've wanted to do something that wasn't covered by one of the Moves, so in practice I haven't found it a real restriction.

 

[Ladybird]

It's always the fans of games that are off-putting, seldom the games themselves (and I KNOW I've been guilty of it myself at times). I can even recognize that some of the fans of games I LIKE (DCC, OSR) can get quite carried away.

This is the thing that has always bugged me about PbtA obsessive fans: the games and the underlying system really aren't doing anything new. They're explicit about things that other games leave implicit (Things like the GM Moves and Principles are just quick summary lists of things to do or the ways that reality works in a given genre; Moves are just the things the system cares enough to really go into in detail, sometimes there just aren't any rules for something and that's fine because adjudicating the world fairly is the GM's job), but that's not doing anything new, that's just being open (And IMO a good set of principles can help a GM understand how to run a world far better than rambling GM advice and an atlas). But all the rest of it is just basic RP core mechanics.

I think there's a trap amongst some fans where they think a game needs to be innovative to be exciting, and so they emphasise that, rather than just letting a game be exciting by doing the basics really well and gelling with those player's thought processes.

Switching to a Fortune-At-The-End approach, the GM would decide (or crowdsource) the potential complication before the dice are rolled. That way when dice comes up as "7" there is no delay or initial ambiguity about its significance. The GM may narrate the outcome, but it is just description, all material decisions have been made and we promptly move on to the next scene.

I see the flaw in this, as I mentioned before, it requires pondering potential outcomes that may never happen and could mean that overall slower action resolution. but I think it does matter from a game rhythm point of view, not just how long the action resolution process takes but where within that process the slow down occurs.

I think this is an example of how certain mechanics really gel with people. I like knowing the risks up front; I figure my character has lived in their world for long enough, so would be able to judge potential consequences themselves, so discussing this helps me get into their headspace because I'm getting to make the same thoughts they would.

This tends to be how I GM a lot of other games, too; I'm happy to drop information to let players make more informed choices. They usually still do the things, after all, and then I can be utterly merciless because they knew the risks.

Oh great. I'm still at the absolute bottom of the heirarchy.

If it's any consolation, I'm not exactly high on that list.

 

[PolarBlues]

I haven't had an opportunity to read Avatar yet - but most 7-9 have some sort of options there. Does this particular move not have that? Than this is pretty unique to that interpretation of the rules.

"I Rely on my Skills and Training" Move on a 7-9 states leaves it to the GM to decide a consequence or I can take 1 point of Fatigue instead. So, in theory I could just prempt this by automatially taking the Fatigue point, but I don't think that is how the game is meant to be played. But you are correct, some other Moves have more defined consequences.

 

[chuckdee]

"I Rely on my Skills and Training" Move on a 7-9 states leaves it to the GM to decide a consequence or I can take 1 point of Fatigue instead. So, in theory I could just prempt this by automatially taking the Fatigue point, but I don't think that is how the game is meant to be played. But you are correct, some other Moves have more defined consequences.

That's pretty... lackluster. That's the reason I've always liked 7-9 because of the consequences stated along with the benefits, i.e. choose two of these, or one of these and one of these. Just leaving it to the GM to decide is weaksauce.

 

[Skywalker]

That's pretty... lackluster. That's the reason I've always liked 7-9 because of the consequences stated along with the benefits, i.e. choose two of these, or one of these and one of these. Just leaving it to the GM to decide is weaksauce.

The move equivalent to Defy Danger in Avatar Legends is Push Your Luck, which has such a choice at 7-9 IIRC. Rely on Skills and Training is for things the PC is good at, which may explain why the PC has more control on the 7-9 result.

 

[Mankcam]

I might be wrong, but that is what I understand as "player says that they want to do X, GM says 'roll Y' stat/skill do try it", to quote you.

This is pretty much how I've always run my games, long before I knew about Storygames (this decade), or narrative heavy games (two decades).
I just thought it was the easiest way to GM and it made more sense to me.

My players describe actions, and I tell them what the most appropriate way to do this for a particular situation.
In most games it's a core characteristic roll (eg: D&D 5E, WFRP, or, as in OQ/Mythras, it's a two core characteristic combo).
In some cases it's just a core chance roll (ie: Numenera, Fate, etc).
If the character has a relevant skill/trait than that value adds, superceeds, or otherwise makes the roll easier to achieve, then I ask them to describe what they are doing and how they are using that skill/trait.

It's good to get players out of the mindset of going straight to a default skill. Of course 80% of the time that is what ends up happening anyway, but this way feels more natural and free form, and lends itself to adapting to situations sometimes in unexpected ways, or otherwise achieveing what they want to do in more creative approaches.

 

[Mankcam]

"Moves" would just be called "rules" in other systems, though. They're really not doing anything new, it's just presentation.

The core concept still works great when you strip it back to "roll dice, high is success, low is fail, middling is a bit of both; if you don't feel it's worth rolling, GM decides whether it happens or not". Add in a mechanism for character differentiation and a mechanism that stops PC's endlessly trying again and you're good.

Yep that's how I see this. Nothing new or innovative, but perhaps more emphasised in some of these games than in more trad games. I dunno.
Not trying to add fuel to a fire or anything, I just assumed playing more 'narratively' or playing more 'gamey' were approaches that always seemed to exist for me since I started being a GM in the mid to late 1980s.
Theatre of the Mind approach vs Miniatures, that kinda thing.

 

[Mankcam]

A new thing I learnt at the Pub

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER jump in and start reading a thread without ALL the backstory!
I thought that I could start at page 5 'cos of this thread's apparent popularity and work out what was happening from the posts.

Yeah I am just reading thru this thread now, and realising a lot of things have transpired since the quotes I responded to...

I got to this one and had to check that I hadn't somehow clicked on a link that redirected me to some S&M site or something?!
I'VE LEARNt MY LESSON - Never again!!!!!

Wow, I've never been so lucky, heh heh

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yup. In most games I run, I crib an appropriate set of GM Moves and keep them on a 3X5 as inspiration.

I think a lot of the pushback is to the idea that "you can do these things and only these things". Which I mean seems like a harsh reading, and frankly isn't really much of a restriction anyway. I can't think of a lot of times where I've wanted to do something that wasn't covered by one of the Moves, so in practice I haven't found it a real restriction.

I think it's overly adherent to the letter of the text (agh jargon) rather than the spirit. And most of the folks who cite this as a problem will happily batter any other ruleset with house rules until you can't even recognize what game it is.

But even still, I think the restriction is not so much the moves themselves... as you suggest, most of the moves are simply things GMs will do in the game. But the moves tell them when to do them, and how much. They're not free to just decide when something happens and so on.

I have one buddy of mine who bounced off PbtA pretty hard say that to me. He'd prefer to be entirely in control of the events of play rather than be prompted by the system to introduce events.

I think this is an example of how certain mechanics really gel with people. I like knowing the risks up front; I figure my character has lived in their world for long enough, so would be able to judge potential consequences themselves, so discussing this helps me get into their headspace because I'm getting to make the same thoughts they would.

This tends to be how I GM a lot of other games, too; I'm happy to drop information to let players make more informed choices. They usually still do the things, after all, and then I can be utterly merciless because they knew the risks.

Yeah, that's a big part of it. Setting the risks... or at the very least, some sense of the risks... ahead of time. The players have reliable expectations of what may happen depending on the outcome of the roll. I'm always in favor of sharing as much as possible.

 

[Skywalker]

I think it's overly adherent to the letter of the text (agh jargon) rather than the spirit. And most of the folks who cite this as a problem will happily batter any other ruleset with house rules until you can't even recognize what game it is.

This is a good example of how the clear and transparent presentation of concepts in PbtA is a double-edged sword. In some cases, like GM Moves, it seems that people take an issue with the fact that PbtA presents concepts in this manner rather than the concepts themselves.

 

[TristramEvans]

This is a good example of how the clear and transparent presentation of concepts in PbtA is a double-edged sword. In some cases, like GM Moves, it seems that people take an issue with the fact that PbtA presents concepts in this manner rather than the concepts themselves.

Absolutely, it's like being on a date and having every answer to the anticipated conversation on cue cards

 

[Skywalker]

Absolutely, it's like being on a date and having every answer to the anticipated conversation on cue cards

I am wondering if some of this response is based on how clear the person sees that these concepts are usually communicated in an RPG. As an experienced RPGer, a lot of them feel obvious and so my initial reaction to PbtA RPGs border on outrage. However, I came to realise that that I don't have a particularly unbiased view of RPGs. My experiences with new and young RPGers, and those with various mental disabilities, made me come to realise that RPGs are actually pretty weird and obtuse about how they play, especially in comparison to other types of games out there.

Using your analogy, if your date is a person who struggles to communicate, then those cue cards could be a godsend in saving the relationship

EDIT: In full transparency, this eventually lead me in a circle to looking at my own GMing and actually realising that a ground level re-examination of certain parts was actually beneficial to me and my players. PbtA has done a lot to reinvigorate my GMIng in the last 10 years

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

A related matter is that there even seems to be confusion about storygames requiring some kind of restricted play, when most storygames actually tend towards freeform play.

To me, the weakest storygames are those that don't give enough structure to play, as opposed to too much structure.

That's a common view on storygames/freeform but I think it's wrong.

With freeform play, the narration determines outcomes. Mechanics, if they're used (and they're often not in pure freeform, at least not beyond a coinflip) are treated as guidelines to be twisted or ignored as necessary. Final judgement on outcomes is generally determined either by group consensus or GM fiat.

Storygames are very different, they're mechanically driven. Designwise, they're arguably close to Euro boardgames; tightly designed machines that aim to produce a singular result and are very dangerous to tinker (AKA house rule) with. Storygames is a bit of a misnomer although it's stuck. It's the mechanics that determine all outcomes and the narration takes place around those mechanical outcomes.

I suspect the latter is more contentious than the former so I'll back it up.

Let's take My Life With Master as an example. I think it's a good one; it is or at least was an absolute darling of the storygame scene, it's won awards etc.

It does exactly what I've described. Everything, down to the endgame, is mechanically determined. It's not actually possible to alter the mechanical outcome of a scene through IC actions, merely how that outcome plays out. Now it's fans would say that's a feature not a bug; the whole point is to use the mechanics as a way of creating interesting narration. And they're right, but it's the exact opposite of freeform play.

As an aside, this is why MLWM bombed when I tried running it. I believed all the stuff about it being about story and thought I could run it in my normal improv heavy loosy goosy with the rules style. Spoiler: It will break down if you do this and do so badly.

Now, very little of this is true of PbTA. Because PbtA is a narrative RPG not a storygame.

And, quite honestly, it's only just a narrative RPG. There's a few player facing decisions which would qualify for me (do you die? being the most significant). And the restrictions placed on GMs, although it's way less strong on that than something like AGON. Most of what people see as "narrative" is stuff like the discussion of agendas and philosophy. And frankly that's just GM advice under another name. So it might suggest taking GM input about the world. But it doesn't mechanically reinforce that mostly, unlike something like FATE.

So yeah, a narrative RPG, but less narrative as narrative RPGs go. The reason I think that isn't recognised is mostly associations people have with its creation. Vince was a prominent Forgie = the Forgies were known for storygaming = PbtA must have strong storygame elements.

That's aggravated by the claims like "PbtA isn't a system, it's a design philosophy". Actually, it's neither, it's a marketing brand. Vince himself has said it's just the term he uses to describe his IP policy.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I am wondering if some of this response is based on how clear the person sees that these concepts are usually communicated in an RPG. As an experienced RPGer, a lot of them feel obvious and so my initial reaction to PbtA RPGs border on outrage. However, I came to realise that that I don't have a particularly unbiased view of RPGs. My experiences with new and young RPGers, and those with various mental disabilities, made me come to realise that RPGs are actually pretty weird and obtuse about how they play, especially in comparison to other types of games out there.

Using your analogy, if your date is a person who struggles to communicate, then those cue cards could be a godsend in saving the relationship

I'm not sure it does much to help those RPGers either though, just because of it coming with so much marketing which obfuscates anything it's trying to do. Compare to something like Lone Wolf Adventure Game which literally gives you step by step "how to GM" notes throughout its introductory adventure.

 

[Skywalker]

I'm not sure it does much to help those RPGers either though, just because of it coming with so much marketing which obfuscates anything it's trying to do. Compare to something like Lone Wolf Adventure Game which literally gives you step by step "how to GM" notes throughout its introductory adventure.

There is not one way to provide this kind of guidance, or one right way either. I think the Lone Wolf Adventure Game is a great product for these purposes as well.

I guess where I find PbtA to be different is that most traditional starter sets seem to focus on giving you a packaged experience with a springboard after which you are left to sink or swim. PbtA provides more of a hands-on system guide, including character and adventure creation and group dynamics, which tends to be continue to be useful beyond the initial play experience.