Why I don't like PbtA

[AsenRG]

When the party splits up it's easy enough for GM to switch to rotate between players/groups of players giving everyone a fair share of the time. Admittedly it works better in urban settings when it feels natural for different characters with different skills to pursue different leads. This is pretty old, well-established GMing tech.

...so, yet another GMing technique I've had to rediscover?

Eh, I'm getting used to it...

You might want to try my Expert GMing Move: split them in three parts. When the first group starts interacting with an NPC they want something from, pull aside a player from Group 3, tell him or her what the NPC can give them, give him the quick stats, and let him play the interaction out with them.
Then switch to the second group. If you still have waiting players, wait until 2nd group meets an NPC they want something from...

 

[RandallS]

At the core of most PbtA games there will be a catchall for actions not covered by specific moves - a Risky Shit move of some kind. This is what you roll when a player is doing something (anything!) that isn't covered by a specific move. This catchall move has a very non-specific format specifically to scaffold its intended use, and will probably look something like this:
View attachment 65067
You can see that the outcomes and whatnot are quite general and fit the possibilities for anything risky or done under a time crunch.

For me, this is one of the major things that prevent me from liking -- let alone using -- PbtA games. To me this reads:

10+ = Success (about 17% of the time)
7-9 = Partial Failure (about 42% of the time)
6- = CRITICAL Fumble (about 41% of the time)

This does not suit the type of campaigns I run. I'm not running a campaign where all characters are basically the Coyote in a Roadrunner cartoon where any failure results in the worst possible outcome ("things go to hell"). A fumble roll in my campaigns results a setback, not in a disaster -- and fumbles are rare, generally 1% of the time (at most).

There are a number of other things in the average PbtA system that do not work well for the type of campaigns I enjoy running (and my player enjoy playing), but the high rate of "things go to hell" is a huge "No Go" red flag. Does this this mean PbtA games are bad rules? No, but it does mean the PbtA rules aren't for my campaigns, for my players, or for me.

 

[Agemegos]

With regard to party-splitting, two things that can help to make it less of a problem are if the GM and whichever character-players have their turn in the spotlight from time to time (a) keep it snappy and (b) strive to make it amusing for the onlookers. Audience stance is a thing — there is usually at least someone in audience stance most of the time during play — and it is part of the art of RPG when you are in author, director, actor, or even character stance to entertain the audience of the moment. Be a fun player to play with, and remember that brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[Agemegos]

It seems each game has two types of actions. Ones that require a roll to determine the outcome, and ones that don’t.

I disagree. I would say instead that every game has two kinds of times, times when the GM knows what the result of an action ought to be, and times when the GM wants rules to help figure of what the rsult of an action is going to be. Any particular action can need resolution by the rules some times and not need it other times, depending on circumstances and consequences.

 

[lategamer]

I disagree. I would say instead that every game has two kinds of times, times when the GM knows what the result of an action ought to be, and times when the GM wants rules to help figure of what the rsult of an action is going to be. Any particular action can need resolution by the rules some times and not need it other times, depending on circumstances and consequences.

Ok, bear with me.

If the Moves cover almost every situation and they involve a roll, and the things that aren't Moves are not rolled and it's GM fiat, why are there Stats? Why not just assign probabilities to the Moves directly?

 

[Silverlion]

Ok, bear with me.

If the Moves cover almost every situation and they involve a roll, and the things that aren't Moves are not rolled and it's GM fiat, why are there Stats? Why not just assign probabilities to the Moves directly?

Well, I suspect so characters have some differentiation from one another, and stats DO impact moves.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Yeah, generally moves call for specific stat rolls.

 

[Fenris-77]

For me, this is one of the major things that prevent me from liking -- let alone using -- PbtA games. To me this reads:

10+ = Success (about 17% of the time)
7-9 = Partial Failure (about 42% of the time)
6- = CRITICAL Fumble (about 41% of the time)

This does not suit the type of campaigns I run. I'm not running a campaign where all characters are basically the Coyote in a Roadrunner cartoon where any failure results in the worst possible outcome ("things go to hell"). A fumble roll in my campaigns results a setback, not in a disaster -- and fumbles are rare, generally 1% of the time (at most).

There are a number of other things in the average PbtA system that do not work well for the type of campaigns I enjoy running (and my player enjoy playing), but the high rate of "things go to hell" is a huge "No Go" red flag. Does this this mean PbtA games are bad rules? No, but it does mean the PbtA rules aren't for my campaigns, for my players, or for me.

This is a common misconception about PbtA. You have been lead astray, I think, by the phrase things go to hell. This isn't a critical fumble but rather simply failure measured against the risk involved - the phrase itself is somewhat dramatic, I'd agree. Failure is simply an opportunity for the GM to make a move and in PbtA parlance possibly a 'hard' move if that's what makes sense in the situation. A second area of confusion here is the likely math on 2d6. Most characters in a group tend to work to their strengths which generally means things that aren't based off of 0 mod stats. This is just like, for example, a D&D party where the fighter breaks down doors and the Bard sweet talks the guards. Even a +1 in PbtA tilts the success field significantly and your primary stat is likely to be +2 or possibly even +3 right at char gen, which makes that character very competent in their areas of specialty. If you are doing something really risky and you're rolling a 0 mod stat things have gotten dire indeed.

It's interesting how often this opinion comes up when my experience actually running the game is that it's quite easy to get enormously competent characters either right away or very early in a game.

 

[Fenris-77]

Ok, bear with me.

If the Moves cover almost every situation and they involve a roll, and the things that aren't Moves are not rolled and it's GM fiat, why are there Stats? Why not just assign probabilities to the Moves directly?

Because different characters with different stats have different chances of success and failure at task X? The stats just add to the 2d6 roll, so even +1 is a big deal.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Well, I suspect so characters have some differentiation from one another, and stats DO impact moves.

Yeah, generally moves call for specific stat rolls.

Because different characters with different stats have different chances of success and failure at task X? The stats just add to the 2d6 roll, so even +1 is a big deal.

I think you're all missing a pretty obvious, if unstated, next step.

Without attibutes, you don't have any training in attributes. Instead, you just have training in the moves directly.

In other words, if the system is entirely skill-based -- which is what moves really are -- then just make it skill-based. Why bother with skills and attributes if all you ever use are skills?

If you have moves that allow multiple attributes, well... don't do that. Make a different Move for each kind of use.

 

[EmperorNorton]

What would be the advantage of having more stats other than just to have more numbers. If multiple moves can fit under one stat, making it multiple stats is just inefficient for no reason.

It also makes progression easier, as different moves can have different levels of usefulness. But if one stat has two moves that are pretty useful and applicable in a good many situations, and one stat has 4 moves that are marginally useful as they are used less often each, the stats don't need to be weighed differently in progression.

 

[Bacon Bits]

What would be the advantage of having more stats other than just to have more numbers.

It could be any number of reasons. You might find better verisimilitude in granularity. Just because you're better at fighting with a dagger doesn't mean you're better at shooting a bow, balancing on a wire, dodging an attack, or all the other things that an agility stat is used for. Just because you're better at playing a guitar doesn't mean you're better at negotiating a contract. Just because you know more about history doesn't mean you're better at mathematics. Attributes and fixed move probabilities don't give that kind of granularity, and that's not really realistic.

However, it's kind of irrelevant to the question being asked. My read is that lategamer isn't asking you to play that design. They're just asking you to think critically about the design.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think you're all missing a pretty obvious, if unstated, next step.

Without attibutes, you don't have any training in attributes. Instead, you just have training in the moves directly.

In other words, if the system is entirely skill-based -- which is what moves really are -- then just make it skill-based. Why bother with skills and attributes if all you ever use are skills?

If you have moves that allow multiple attributes, well... don't do that. Make a different Move for each kind of use.

But you also lose the ability to train a stat that applies to multiple moves. There's no gaping design hole here.

Edit: Training up moves when there's one move that is a catchall is also problematic. You'd have to do a whole lot more work to rationalize the XP cost to train various moves IMO. Not impossible, but unnecessarily fiddly IMO. In addition to above issue of course.

 

[Bacon Bits]

But you also lose the ability to train a stat that applies to multiple moves. There's no gaping design hole here.

Yes, a different design is, indeed, a different design.

Why do you think lategamer asked they question they did, then?

 

[EmperorNorton]

Yes, a different design is, indeed, a different design.

Why do you think lategamer asked they question they did, then?

Ok, I have to ask, what do you consider "thinking critically" about something. Because apparently us pointing out reasons for why it is the way it is is not "thinking critically" apparently.

We're pointing out the reason the system is designed the way it is, and the advantages of how it is designed the way it is.

If someone asks "Why not do it this way?" I think responding with the reasons it is, in fact, not done that way is you know, a relevant response.

But since you don't, please tell us what you think a relevant response is?

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes, a different design is, indeed, a different design.

Why do you think lategamer asked they question they did, then?

Well, I answered the question about the design and the answer was that it's subpar for several reasons. You don't have to rely on my opinion though, you can go ahead and noodle around with it and see how it feels. I'm pretty sure it will be as I said it would though, unnecessarily fiddly and lacking granularity in some important ways.

Edit: Just to be clear, because it hasn't been mentioned, improving characters in PbtA usually involves either improving a stat (more expensive) or adding another playbook move (less expensive). You could, obviously, attach mods to moves, but I don't see any design or play benefit to doing so. There might be one, but I don't see it and I do bring a certain amount of PbtA design chops to the conversation (which just means I have some idea what I'm talking about when it comes to fiddling about with bits of the game to do new things or the same things in different ways, as you suggest).

 

[EmperorNorton]

Another example of how it can screw up progression rules is that not every ability a character can take on a playsheet is a move. Some alter existing moves. Or just give other small bonuses. So players can end up with different amounts of moves they have access to.

So if each one is a different "stat' it makes each character have a different number of stats they need to raise to be good at the things they are supposed to be able to do. Leaving it at 4ish stats that everything works off of instead is simpler.

 

[DornKratz]

You sure could have all the fiddliness of numerical ratings per move, but if that's what you're after, then there are better chassis to build from. I don't see the point of turning PbtA into Mythras.

 

[Fenris-77]

You sure could have all the fiddliness of numerical ratings per move, but if that's what you're after, then there are better chassis to build from. I don't see the point of turning PbtA into Mythras.

I think that's one thing Mythas can't do (or at least shouldn't want to do).

 

[Bacon Bits]

Ok, I have t2o ask, what do you consider "thinking critically" about something. Because apparently us pointing out reasons for why it is the way it is is not "thinking critically" apparently.

We're pointing out the reason the system is designed the way it is, and the advantages of how it is designed the way it is.

If someone asks "Why not do it this way?" I think responding with the reasons it is, in fact, not done that way is you know, a relevant response.

But since you don't, please tell us what you think a relevant response is?

You pointed out things that are so obvious that it can't possibly be what they were driving it. It's too obvious. Like nobody is that stupid, right? They must be trying to make you think deeper than the blindingly obvious.

Unless you think they were just wasting your time or doing something else equally bad-faith? In which case why engage at all?

 

[EmperorNorton]

You pointed out things that are so obvious that it can't possibly be what they were driving it. It's too obvious. Like nobody is that stupid, right? They must be trying to make you think deeper than the blindingly obvious.

Unless you think they were just wasting your time or doing something else equally bad-faith? In which case why engage at all?

I answered the question asked. If he had a different question, he should ask that question.

And I don't assume that anyone knows what I know. That is almost always a faulty assumption. Quite often things that seem obvious to me are not obvious to others. And it all depends on our areas of expertise. I get the feeling that he is not particularly knowledgeable of PbtA games. Why would I assume he knows anything about their design?

If I was asking a question about why Mythras does something a certain way, I'm quite certain there would be people here who could give me very good answers that sound very obvious to people who play the game that I wouldn't have known.

 

[lategamer]

What would be the advantage of having more stats other than just to have more numbers. If multiple moves can fit under one stat, making it multiple stats is just inefficient for no reason.

It also makes progression easier, as different moves can have different levels of usefulness. But if one stat has two moves that are pretty useful and applicable in a good many situations, and one stat has 4 moves that are marginally useful as they are used less often each, the stats don't need to be weighed differently in progression.

OK, I grok this. There's an idea (a cool idea) that was mentioned earlier that any move could be used with any stat depending on the environmental trigger. Which is kinda the way a lot of modern games treat Skills anyway.

Although, thinking this through, it leads to the TOR issue (where I saw it most recently) that a player will argue any situation round to their strengths. Again not a criticism, I mean it's not like humans and corporations don't do that every waking hour.

Understanding++

 

[lategamer]

You could, obviously, attach mods to moves, but I don't see any design or play benefit to doing so. There might be one, but I don't see it and I do bring a certain amount of PbtA design chops to the conversation (which just means I have some idea what I'm talking about when it comes to fiddling about with bits of the game to do new things or the same things in different ways, as you suggest).

I was thinking that Mods to Moves (like Talents in YZE, Specialities or Focus in other games) might be an interesting aside.

Adding Moves seems weird if the Moves you have are already everything that a character should be able to do. The rest is dressing?

Adding to Attributes should be expensive but then they have valuable benefits.

The low cost one would seem to be 'special modifier if you use Cool for this Move rather than Strength'.

(In answer to the musing, I've read about half a dozen PBTA-type games (Masks, Avatar, TSL, MotW, Urban Shadows, MH) and BITD. I'm much more interested in the design than playing them. Even though I don't like the boardgamey feel, it's not like we can't learn from stuff we don't like)

 

[hawkeyefan]

There's another big difference and it boils down to this.

Most games treat the rules more loosely AKA Rule Zero. AW doesn't; there is only one singular way to GM AW and it strongly implies at least that you shouldn't be diverging from the list of moves.

That's a vital difference I think, way more than the old trad/narrative debate. AW is meant to be played strictly by the rulebook and restricts GM authority accordingly. (Obviously, it's not the only game to do so. But it is a pretty big jump from how most RPG have traditionally been played. It's also why I don't think @TristramEvans' "training wheels" analogy works. That's not the function of moves. Moves are there explicitly to make sure the GM keeps within the broad confines of the path ahead).

Oh, I was speaking from the player perspective... I should have been clearer. Rolls only happen on player moves... so to me there are either ones that need a roll, or ones that don't.

The GM side is definitely different. I agree with you that there's a big difference with PbtA compared to many more traditional games. I think it often gets attributed to Moves, but I think it's really more about the constraint the system places on GM action. I don't think anyone really has a problem with "Separate Them" or "Deplete Their Resources" because these are dangers that GMs of any game will likely put to the characters. Having labels for those things is pretty cosmetic, really.

It's more about the fact that they can only do those things at specific times... most often when a roll calls for it. GMs are not free to just introduce any obstacles at any times. There is a limit to what they can do. Honestly, I think this is why they call them Moves... because it's what a GM can do when it is his turn to act. I think that's what most people are complaining about when they complain about Moves on the GM side. Not all of them, for sure, but many folks I've talked to, at least.

 

[DornKratz]

I was thinking that Mods to Moves (like Talents in YZE, Specialities or Focus in other games) might be an interesting aside.

Adding Moves seems weird if the Moves you have are already everything that a character should be able to do. The rest is dressing?

Adding to Attributes should be expensive but then they have valuable benefits.

The low cost one would seem to be 'special modifier if you use Cool for this Move rather than Strength'.

(In answer to the musing, I've read about half a dozen PBTA-type games (Masks, Avatar, TSL, MotW, Urban Shadows, MH) and BITD. I'm much more interested in the design than playing them. Even though I don't like the boardgamey feel, it's not like we can't learn from stuff we don't like)

Monster of the Week has "Moves as Mods." If you want your Wronged to move people with the strength of their convictions (or to simply browbeat them,) you can pick a Move to let you use an alternative stat to Manipulate Someone. if you want to have special effects on a 12+ for a basic Move, you can pick a Move that does that.

Masks does "Adult Moves as Replacement," and in general, when you pick a new Move, that's what you get, better outcomes on a success, or less disatrous ones on a failure. You don't Unleash Your Power like an uncaged beast, you Wield Your Power like a powerful but precise tool.

I also notice there is a propensity to keep advancement simple. It's a flat XP value or number of adventures for a new Move or Stat increase, but gating more powerful options. It keeps the math to a minimum, but if a player wants to minmax, they can strain the limits of the game very quick.

 

[chuckdee]

Most games treat the rules more loosely AKA Rule Zero. AW doesn't; there is only one singular way to GM AW and it strongly implies at least that you shouldn't be diverging from the list of moves.

I wouldn't say strongly implies as it says if you come across a situation that doesn't fit into any of the moves, feel free to make your own...

 

[Fenris-77]

I was thinking that Mods to Moves (like Talents in YZE, Specialities or Focus in other games) might be an interesting aside.

Adding Moves seems weird if the Moves you have are already everything that a character should be able to do. The rest is dressing?

Adding to Attributes should be expensive but then they have valuable benefits.

The low cost one would seem to be 'special modifier if you use Cool for this Move rather than Strength'.

(In answer to the musing, I've read about half a dozen PBTA-type games (Masks, Avatar, TSL, MotW, Urban Shadows, MH) and BITD. I'm much more interested in the design than playing them. Even though I don't like the boardgamey feel, it's not like we can't learn from stuff we don't like)

The playbook moves aren't just additional moves like basic moves, they tend to be archetype specific. The stat increases are also in many instances tied to playbook. Example:


An important thing to note there is the move that lets you use a different stat for a basic move. This appears in lots of playbooks and usually means using a better stat. This isn't the whole list for this playbook but it's enough of a sample to give people an idea. Most games allow you pick a couple of moves from the playbook to start and then add more as the game progresses. Many games also allow a limited ability to choose moves from other playbooks.

 

[chuckdee]

For me, this is one of the major things that prevent me from liking -- let alone using -- PbtA games. To me this reads:

10+ = Success (about 17% of the time)
7-9 = Partial Failure (about 42% of the time)
6- = CRITICAL Fumble (about 41% of the time)

This does not suit the type of campaigns I run. I'm not running a campaign where all characters are basically the Coyote in a Roadrunner cartoon where any failure results in the worst possible outcome ("things go to hell"). A fumble roll in my campaigns results a setback, not in a disaster -- and fumbles are rare, generally 1% of the time (at most).

There are a number of other things in the average PbtA system that do not work well for the type of campaigns I enjoy running (and my player enjoy playing), but the high rate of "things go to hell" is a huge "No Go" red flag. Does this this mean PbtA games are bad rules? No, but it does mean the PbtA rules aren't for my campaigns, for my players, or for me.

That's a base roll. You get to add to that, so competent characters don't use anywhere near that distribution.

 

[JAMUMU]

That's a base roll. You get to add to that, so competent characters don't use anywhere near that distribution.

And most games I've read include at least a -1 in the stat distribution if you start with another strong stat (i dont have anything to hand to check this right enough), so out of the gate starting character ABCDE-omni-competence isn't likely. I feel that this is part of the PbtA vibe as well.

 

[DornKratz]

It's more about the fact that they can only do those things at specific times... most often when a roll calls for it. GMs are not free to just introduce any obstacles at any times. There is a limit to what they can do. Honestly, I think this is why they call them Moves... because it's what a GM can do when it is his turn to act. I think that's what most people are complaining about when they complain about Moves on the GM side. Not all of them, for sure, but many folks I've talked to, at least.

GMs are free to make a Move whenever a player gives them an opportunity or there is a lull in the action (which are the moments when you would want to add a complication.) In practice, I never had a moment where I wanted to make a Move but couldn't.

 

[hawkeyefan]

GMs are free to make a Move whenever a player gives them an opportunity or there is a lull in the action (which are the moments when you would want to add a complication.)

Sure, I get that. Many moves are in response to rolls, but you can also do it when the players look to you about what happens next, or they give you a golden opportunity.

My point is that when a GM makes a move is determined by the system. It specifically tells you. You can't make a move to "reveal an unwelcome truth" and introduce some reinforcements in the middle of a battle, following a 10+ roll by one of the players.

Most often, you can't make two or more moves when it's time for the GM to act. They get to pick a move, but when it's played and how many and the scope of the consequence is determined by the system.

Many other games don't limit the GM in this way. They may not have any mechanics for introducing a complication into the middle of a scene other than the GM deciding it'd be cool to do so. And even some that do... maybe reinforcements would only arrive based on a roll of some sort to see if anyone hears the fight or something similar... most such games add in a rule zero type caveat "the GM can decide to ignore the rules" or similar.

PbtA games... at least the ones I am familiar with and think work well... don't allow that. The GM's actions are limited in ways similar to the players, with clear triggers.

In practice, I never had a moment where I wanted to make a Move but couldn't.

Yeah, I only felt some restriction in this way when first GMing PbtA. But that faded pretty quickly.

Let me ask you this, though... think about when you've GMed other games... have you always introduced complications that might be classified as a GM move willy nilly?

 

[DornKratz]

Sure, I get that. Many moves are in response to rolls, but you can also do it when the players look to you about what happens next, or they give you a golden opportunity.

My point is that when a GM makes a move is determined by the system. It specifically tells you. You can't make a move to "reveal an unwelcome truth" and introduce some reinforcements in the middle of a battle, following a 10+ roll by one of the players.

This is absolutely true. You either embrace "Play to Find Out," or you will feel restricted by the system. You may have thought the goblin king would call for reinforcements, but your players rolled multiple 10+ and finished him before he could make a peep. But this could have happened in D&D too; sometimes players roll initiative well, and the cool monster you homebrewed never gets a chance to do its thing. You may feel down that the story you had in mind didn't come to pass, but the story that happened on the table wasn't written by you alone. And it's perfectly possible that your players will remember that time they shanked the goblin king more fondly than any evenly matched encounter you throw at them.

Most often, you can't make two or more moves when it's time for the GM to act. They get to pick a move, but when it's played and how many and the scope of the consequence is determined by the system.

This too may be a good thing. I think the Alexandrian makes a good point.

Yeah, I only felt some restriction in this way when first GMing PbtA. But that faded pretty quickly.

Let me ask you this, though... think about when you've GMed other games... have you always introduced complications that might be classified as a GM move willy nilly?

I'd like to think I got better at adding GM intermissions that feel logical and fair over time. I try to telegraph danger and escalate, and I feel that a good PbtA game is one that teaches GMs habits that will work well in most tables.

 

[chuckdee]

"No, no, there's an additional layer of abstraction," really doesn't seem like it changes anything at all.

You'll have to unpack this. I'm not getting that argument from what I wrote.

 

[chuckdee]

That's nice but the entire thing is expressed in terms of moves. If you are actually interacting using the system, it's a move.

We're talking about the inability to do anything. I'm just saying you aren't limited. If the GM thinks there is a chance of failure and wants to roll it, there is (in every game I've seen) something that reflects that generically. Else, it doesn't trigger a move and the GM says what happens. The limits that you stated that were the impetus for that response do not exist.

 

[Bacon Bits]

You'll have to unpack this. I'm not getting that argument from what I wrote.

Well, whatever you do, don't try to correct that miscommunication.

 

[chuckdee]

Well, whatever you do, don't try to correct that miscommunication.

What? I'm just asking you to unpack your statement. What does your reply even have to do with that?

 

[robiswrong]

You kind of aren't but you also kind of are. Everything in the system is expressed in moves so everything has to be fit to a move or some sort whether it's a generic one or a more specific one. The entire resolution system is framed in terms of moves and what they do. If they aren't using a move to do whatever they are doing, you are your own for how that's resolved beyond the basic fail/succeed with complications/succeed framework. It's not much of a stretch to conclude that everything you do must be a move of some sort. Just from reading the system and running it a bit, that seems like the intent. If there's a move to befriend someone, do you need to have that move to try to befriend someone? If yes, that limits what you can try to do based on what moves you have. If no, why is that move even there?

I think there's an interesting viewpoint difference buried in here.

One of the things I like to talk about is interaction types in RPGs. I've seen three, and usually games use a multiple of them. There may be more!

Type 1:
GM: "This is the situation you're in. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this."
GM: "This is the new situation you're in. What do you do?"

Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules"
Player 2: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules"
Player 3: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules"

Type 3:
Player 1: "This happens"
Player 2: "Then this happens"
Player 3: "Then this happens"

Most traditional games use a combination of Type 1 and Type 2, with Type 2 being more combat. Some people have argued that they should be more Type 2 in general.

Type 1 is interesting because it doesn't require the players interact with the rules - the adjudication of the rules is handled by the GM. This is fundamentally different from Type 2, where the players directly engage the rules.

Narrative games tend to use a combination of Type 1 and Type 3, in varying degrees.... Apocalypse World, by the rules is massively biased for Type 1, outside of the first session (there's some culture aroudn the game that emphasizes Type 2). In fact, I think that while most people think that the presence of Type 3 stuff is the real defining factor of narrative games, I don't think it is.

I think it's the almost complete removal of Type 2. In "narrative" games, what you say matters. You're not engaging the rules. You don't get to say "I want to use this rule". The rules come into play if and only if the imagined situation requires it.

This compares with a lot of games (or at least a lot of way of playing them) where you don't have to describe what happens - the flow tends to be "describe mechanical action, resolve mechanical action, narrate result" with the narrated result being flavor that has no impact.

Narrative games tend to be more "describe what you're doing, GM determines if a mechanical resolution is required, describe result (possible additional choices from partial result), describe final result".

A lot of the heavy lifting is done in that shared imagined space. If you're tied up in a web, we don't need specific rules - we can just acknowledge that you're in a web, and certain things aren't gonna be possible for you. If you describe a defense in a certain way, then that indicates whether or not that defense is even valid - an example in a game I ran was someone defending against a ghoul by grabbing it.... uh, no.

The problem is that if you look at narrative games from a "mechanics are the real game" standpoint, they universally fail. Because the mechanics are, in some ways, the exceptions. You're missing all of the stuff happening in the "current verisimillitudinous fictional story positioning situation", to quote the other thread. In a narrative game, that's where the real game is happening. In something like WotC era D&D combat, that stuff is more or less irrelevant - the mechanics are the "real" game.

In a narrative game, what people say is the engine that drives the game forward. In many other games, the mechanical representation is the engine. And I think this difference can lead to a lot of misunderstanding - narrative games can seem very cut and dried, because they are on the mechanics level. But that's deliberate, because the adaptability and freedom is happening in what people say and imagine.

Notes: In no way am I asserting that this is unique to narrative games. The "interaction types" are, as far as I can tell, in rough order of appearance within RPGs - Type 1 is basically what Gygax seemed to do, most of the time.

I'm not saying that any given traditional table does or does not play in a certain way. I am saying that narrative games are, usually, designed for this style of play. I'm totally willing to hear counterexamples. Preferably from people that like narrative games, to avoid strawmans. Saying "this is how my traditional table plays" is not a counterexample - I fully acknowledge that this is a common and viable pattern. Narrative games do seem to push that Type 1 pattern to combat more than traditional games do, however.

I'm also not saying those are the three only interaction types. There may be more. I haven't seen 'em, or at least anything significantly different that it's been worth another "type". There's some subtlety in them, too. Note that the GM role only appears in Type 1, while the participants in the others are all referred to as "players", among other things.

EDIT: I do think that the presence of some number of Type 3 interactions in narrative games is common, while it is much, much more limited in trad games. So from an outside perspective it might seem like that's the defining factor, but I think you could have a perfectly cromulent narrative game without having any of that kind of player-authorial crap at all. I think there's a few other differences as well, but I don't think that the player authorship is really teh defining feature of narrative games. I absolutely think it's the defining feature of storygames, which are primarily Type3.

 

[PolarBlues]

Let me ask you this, though... think about when you've GMed other games... have you always introduced complications that might be classified as a GM move willy nilly?

Good question. Going way back to the classics, Ghostbusters does this with the Ghost Die. It is kind of like PbtA in that any player character action that requires a roll can trigger it. If the Ghost Die comes up on a succefully roll, it's just a minor complication, if it comes up on a failed roll than it is a major complication.

Mythic the GM tool has something like this. I think they were called Interrupts and Injections, which are random events that are triggered when you come from scene to scene. I have tried to apply this to other game but not successfully, as the transition from scene to scene is never quite so clear cut.

My own Fudge hacks, like Polar Fudge Adventures ties potential complications to the initiative roll, a single d6 roll the GM performs each round of combat to determine which side goes first and potential random event. It really helps jazz up an otherwise pretty shallow combat system, but it is limited to combat.

 

[Bacon Bits]

What? I'm just asking you to unpack your statement. What does your reply even have to do with that?

That's my fault. I completely misread what you were saying. I thought you were telling me to go re-read what you wrote because it meant exactly what you said, and so my response to that was snarky. My apologies.

To explain, then:

When you say, "Moves are triggered by the narrative," all that does is add a layer of abstraction. Once a player knows their GM's style, they're going to be able to predict which move the GM is likely to pick. There's only so many possible options, and you can craft what you say to get the check you want to make. If you narrate "I sneak along the wall, keeping to the shadows," the GM isn't going to call for Seduce or Help or Attack.

It's not even wrong to do that. If it's what your character is supposed to be good at, and what they know how to do... it's what they should try to take advantage of. It's not even really metagaming. Adding this layer of narrative interpretation that the GM has to do to translate into a move doesn't really do much, then.

After all, even in D&D the rule for actions is "tell the DM what you're doing and the DM will call for a suitable roll." Even in that game the player does not choose which skill to roll.

 

[zcthu3]

But splitting the party? Ehhhh... I'm reminded of a game I was in some years ago where every session began with the ranger going "I turn into my hawk form scout ahead!" and getting effectively an hour's worth of solo adventure while we did nothing but trudge along after.

A bit late to this part of the conversation, but I’d also note that “separating them” does not necessarily mean splitting the party such that they now adventure separately. It’s context specific. As examples:

* It could mean, in a fight, that the two PCs guarding each others backs are pulled apart and are now surrounded and flanked! What do they do to get out of this new situation?
* while crossing a chasm, the old bridge collapses leaving half the party on one side, and half on the other? What do they do - can they bridge the gap some other way?