Powered by the Apocalypse?

[androzz]

Hello everyone,

There's a new vampire game powered by the Apocalypse engine I am interested in but I am not entirely sure it really is a game for me.

I have tried to watch videos and read about PbtA and could not really understand how it is played. In my community, it is not a system that is played either.

Is it some sort of collaborative gameplay where people build up the story with minimal intervention from the GM? A system that doesn't run pre-written adventures?

It is still a bit confusing what is going on and I tend to prefer, as a GM, to run adventures and see what the players make out of it.

Could you share some insights on the game system?

cheers!

[Theoboldi]

So, I'll preface this by saying that the only PbtA game I've played extensively is Ironsworn, which breaks from tradition in several ways, but you are overall pretty much on the mark.

PbtA games are all about collaboratively improvising the story of your characters together, with the role of the GM being more to guide things along and present opportunities and play NPCs on the spot than for them to really plan things out. The GM can still prepare things, but this generally revolves more around creating starting situations and problems that the players can get involved in.

Note that when I say it's about telling a story, I do mean that. The rules in most PbtA games aren't so much concerned with what characters can do and what their exact capabilities are, but what their role in the narrative is and what kinds of things a character like them would do in the kind of story they're trying to tell. They're focused around replicating a specific, narrow genre, helping the players and GM stay focused while allowing them to make up the details of the story as they go.

This also means that in most PbtA games, the GM isn't meant to just control the world freely, but that they have certain rules and principles they are meant to abide by. Some of these are softer guidelines, but most are genuine rules that are part of the experience.

You are also right in the regard that the players are meant to be actively involved in pushing the story forward, and typically bring in their own ideas for what might happen next. The role of the GM is not necessarily minimal, but on far more equal footing than in a traditional RPG.


Anyhow, I hope that summary helps a little. Anyone with more experience with PbtA games can feel free to correct me if I've gotten anything wrong.

[Ionathus]

Disclaimer: My only experience with PbtA is listening to an actual-play podcast that used it for a season (The Adventure Zone: Amnesty) and running that same subgenre (Monster of the Week) for my friends in a one-shot last month. I can only speak to Monster of the Week - other versions may have separate design philosophies.

You've got the basic idea: it's much more freeform and much more collaborative than something like D&D. As Theoboldi said, your role as the GM is to create starting situations and know how your monsters/world will react to certain stimuli that the players generate. It's much less about planning ahead or mapping out dungeons, for instance.

However, that doesn't mean everything is completely loosey-goosey either. As the GM, you have a very specific playbook of things you are encouraged to work with - these are the building blocks of the story.

The other thing I really like about Monster of the Week is that the GM doesn't roll dice. Only the players roll for certain abilities, and if they get a 6 or less, you basically get an opportunity to make their lives more complicated. The book stresses that it should be complicated, not just worse. Your job is to make the story interesting, and failure is supposed to be interesting (as well as painful!) because of the complications it introduces.

That's the same in a classic TTRPG like D&D - if the heroes fail to kill the Dragon, it will continue to do damage and maybe cause havoc elsewhere. But that "fail forward" mentality is a lot more present in PbtA games because the game is meant to be much more cinematic - Monster of the Week, for instance, is designed to play out like an episode of Buffy. Even failures in Buffy move the plot forward, etc.

All in all it's a very fun system and I highly recommend trying it out with your friend group!

[Quertus]

This may be a dumb question, but… what if you already feel that the role of the GM should be “to create starting situations and know how your monsters/world will react to certain stimuli that the players generate”? How is PbtA different from doing that in any other RPG?

[Razade]

Powered by the Apocalypse (or PbtA for short, and hereafter) is generally called a “design philosophy” rather than a system originated in Vincent and Maguey Baker’s Apocalypse World and it’s generally referred to as such because one PbtA game can look wildly different than any other. Unlike more ubiquitous systems like d20 (of Pathfinder First Edition and Dungeons and Dragons fame) or Onyx Path’s Storyteller system (Exalted or Vampire: The Masquerade) there are only a few things that make a “PbtA game” a well, PbtA game. I want to stress, no two PbtA games are alike so take this as a general overview.

Play is a Conversation: Narrative versus Simulation

PbtA games are what you'd call Narrative games a. Rather than trying to create a rule for every possible situation, a metric that Simulationist games do to varying degrees, PbtA is a conversation between the Players and the Game Master (GM) with the goal to “Play to Find Out”. You’ll see the aforementioned wording often through PbtA books and for good reason.Things are going to, or should, change both in the world around the Players and the Players themselves.

This is often the first stumbling block for most new to PbtA games as many come from Simulationist style games where the rules and dice rolls prompt action. In PbtA games, the situation is reversed. The narrative is supported by, instead of initiated by, the mechanical rigging of the game. A Player will generally detail what their character is doing and so long as those actions have no uncertainty of their outcome it’s generally understood that no dice need to be rolled. Walking around a room and conversing with Non-Player Characters (NPCs) generally isn’t uncertain, nor is preforming mundane tasks. This all changes with either the outcome of an action is uncertain or if an action might change something within the immediate action. Investigating a room for a secret exit, convincing an NPC to do something they’re not inclined to do or combat are all examples of what would provoke a roll.

Generally the GM will inform the Player of what they need to roll, called making a Move. Typically Players roll with two d6 dice with a 1-6 being a miss, a 7-9 being a hit and a 10+ being a success. When a Player rolls a miss, the GM will inform them how the scene changes. A miss in PbtA games however aren’t always simple failures. As the motto goes “Playing to Find Out” and a miss may simply mean that what the Player wanted to do succeeds but comes with consequences they couldn’t predict. Successfully stopping an avalanche is totally possible on a miss, but perhaps that allows the villainous Poachers to get away or at least get a head start. Similarly, a hit or a success may have unintended consequences. A 7-9 doesn’t mean you’ve succeeded in full after all, the best way to look at a 7-9 is “success at a cost”. Most 7-9 rolls will present options that either give you what you want to do, but ask you to make difficult choices, or give you only some things you want but also apply some actions you didn’t intend. Stopping the aforementioned avalanche may happen on a 7-9 but you find yourself trapped beneath the snow and ice. Typically a 10+ provides bonuses or let’s the Player do as they intended without immediate consequences.

Once a Player has taken their actions, the GM will respond with their own. Unlike the majority of TTRPG games, GMs do not typically roll dice in when taking actions. Instead GMs have their own list of Moves, which can either be Hard or Soft. While we won’t get too much into it here, it’s best to conceptualize Hard and Soft Moves as follows. Hard Moves are immediate actions while Soft Moves provide framing for Players to follow up with Moves or simple narration of their own. Hard Moves are typically maluses to rolls, taking damage or the scene growing more complicated or dangerous. Soft Moves on the other hand are not so immediate, a GM might say “it looks like the Warrior is preparing for a dangerous attack.” as their Move. This provides the Players important context in what’s changed in the scene while giving them time to respond. No matter what Moves a GM makes, they should almost always follow them with “What do you do?”.

Narrative Positioning: The High Ground

As we’ve covered, PbtA games are Narrative focused, told and acted out more than rolling out so what does that mean for Players and what does “winning” look like? The short answer is, there is no “winning” in PbtA games outside of telling the story you want to tell. Saying that however, Players can and should feel that there are stakes to every (or almost every) scene that they’re in. The story shouldn’t be boring after all, and this is where Positioning comes in.

Positioning isn’t used here to refer to where a Player’s character is in any given scene but rather the opportunities a Player has to make a Move or how to make a Move. Players simply can’t declare they’re stealing from a lab under heavy guard and also slip away. Their Position isn’t advantageous enough for the narrative to allow that and be coherent. In this situation, the Player is in a lower Position than the NPCs guarding the the lab and their Moves and the prompts a GM asks for should reflect this. If a Player does try to brute force it, they should expect the better Positioned guards to lay some hurt down upon them or for there to be some serious negative repercussions to fall on them. To use in game language, a miss generally lowers the Position of the Players while hits can lower or raise Position depending on the Moves and choices and a 10+ typically raises a Player’s Position.

While it is typically the GM’s call to declare what Move fits the current situation, there are Moves that the Player will be able to access through their Playbooks that may have their own prompts that trigger when Position changes. The game has Basic Moves, whose triggers are the most forgiving and broad and the Moves Players will be using most often to see how their actions play out. Basic Moves are, however, just that. Basic. More complex, unique Moves can be found in additional material for the game you're playing. This provides the Players the most tools to not only take advantage of, but to improve, their Position during play.

Position isn’t merely for Players however, GMs also should keep Position in mind. A villain who has been roundly defeated can’t simply pull out another weapon and go after the Players as if they hadn’t just been shown the error of their ways. NPCs have lower Position just as much as they have higher Position, depending on the narrative. Often a miss will improve the Position of an NPC or threat the GM has unveiled just as much as it will lower a Player’s Position and the same goes for hits and successes as well. Hard Moves and Soft Moves likewise alter Positioning. Hard Moves almost universally lower a Player’s Position as they are consequences while Soft Moves frame how the Positions of everyone in the scene have changed.

To boil this down to its most intrinsic essence: Generally when a player rolls a hit, the scene moves in their favor and when they roll a miss, the scene moves in the favor of whatever the current opposition is. Once you have the hang of Positioning and how misses, hits and successes can affect the narrative, you’ll have the fundamentals of the PbtA “system” down. To help further we’ve provided an example of play at the end of the chapter to help illustrate all of the above.

Fail Forward

Rolling a miss is how you earn Potential which is sort of like XP in a good number of PbtA games, the manner in which the Player’s character grows, gets more powerful or at least more things to access as they play. This is, as the header says, referred to as Fail Forward. The Players grow more powerful not for accomplishing their goals but by tasting defeat and thus improving for the next attempt.

It’s for this reason, and because most TTRPGs run the reverse of this, that we want to take a moment to stress that rolling a miss is not a failure in the traditional sense. Yes, the Players may encounter setbacks because of their misses but as we’ve mentioned, they may experience setbacks when they’ve rolled a hit! Players, and the GM, shouldn’t find rolling misses to be upsetting but instead look at it as an opportunity to see how the situation within the game changes. After all, you’re Playing to Find Out, and it wouldn’t be very exciting if the answer was you just get what you want, all the time without issue.

The GM and the Players: In This Together

Following the above, the role of a GM in a PbtA game should be seen not as an adversarial thing but as a fan of the players. GMing for a PbtA game isn’t about simply throwing every obstacle at your Players and finding what slows them down or crushes them, it’s about providing challenges and seeing how they overcome and celebrating with them when they do. That doesn’t mean GMing a PbtA game is holding hands and singing camp songs with their Players, I want to stress that it is still the GM’s job to provide, and provoke, challenges for the Players. Simply that once those challenges are met, and while the Players are working to overcome them, that the GM is encouraging the Players and being a fan of the characters involved in the fiction. This compounds with what we outlined in the contract. Being fans of the Players and their characters help ensure that everyone is being excellent to one another.

[Tanarii]

Player says what their character is attempting/doing, GM determines if a roll is necessary or resolves automatically, GM determines outcomes and consequences, is the basic play loop for most TTRPGs. That's not "narrative", that's just a standard resolution process.

IMO what makes PbtA really different is the MC list of moves to choose from to give them strong direction while running the game, and that almost all player's Move rolls incorporate difficult player choices for the middle/typical result when they do have to roll. Also the MC is "required" to one degree or another to do improvised play, not planned adventures.

Other than that, the framing/language mostly reads as standard GNS elitism, especially in AW. Which is hardly surprising, since the author was a member of The Forge. And hosts The Forge archives.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The main reason why the definition is a bit nebulous is because PbtA games are defined as "being inspired by the core concepts of Apocalypse World". While there's particular hallmarks that most PbtA takes from AW, not every game takes the same stuff, which makes the definition a bit fuzzier. Some really fun examples are

• Mobile Frame Zero: Firebrands, which is a GMless and diceless game with a bunch of different "minigames" that players work through
• Dream Askew, which is also GMless and diceless, but has a more traditional "set scenes, see what happens"
• Murderous Ghosts, which uses a "Choose Your Own Adventure" style of play between two players who both have books they flip through, and has a Blackjack-inspired resolution mechanic

In my experience, the most fundamental aspect of every PbtA game I've seen is that they focus on snowballing from narrative beat to narrative beat. Action leads to reaction in a very direct way, without the padding or intermediary of other RPGs. You do something, the MC responds back with a reaction and tells you what happens in response, which puts you or someone else on the spot to reply again. Every move suggests followups, so that play keeps rocketing until the table steps back and winds down for a bit. Beyond that, details differ.

Most (but not all) PbtA uses a core dice mechanic to underscore this. You roll 2d6 (sometimes adding a modifier), and interpret the end result as follows:

• 6 or less (a "miss") means that things don't go the way you want. You might even succeed at what you were trying to do, but what happens is something you weren't counting on. Maybe you stumble and fall into a crevasse, maybe you manage to translate the forbidden tome and discover a horrifying truth that upends what you know.
• 7-9 (a "hit") means that things go like you wanted, but there's a cost, complication, or catch. You toss the package to your contact, but now the guards caught up to you, or you pick the lock but you set off the alarms in the process.
• 10+ (a "strong hit") means that you get what you want, cleanly. You drop into the vault without alerting anyone, or you kick the assassin over the side of the ship.

Each of these ties into the "keep the conversation snowballing" in their own way. On a miss, the conversation snowballs when the MC sets your new and perilous situation. On a hit, the conversation snowballs when you have to deal with the consequences of your action. On a strong hit, the conversation can still snowball as your clean success gives you a new platform to work from.

(There's also some fun variants of this, like Apocalypse Keys, which is: falling short (7-) / clean success (8-10) / complicated success and loss of control (11+). You get bonuses to your roll by spending your character's Darkness resource, so you decide how risky you want to play, and how comfortable you are with potentially losing control of your powers!)

What makes evaluating a PbtA game tricky in isolation is all of the differences between the implementations of the philosophy, because there's so so many designers out there with PbtA games, and none of them are Vincent Baker, which means that we get fresh new takes on the core ideas. I would personally recommend checking out whatever sample materials and demos they provide for the game, watching the sample plays, and seeing for yourself how this specific game plays, because other than generally having a punchy, exciting back-and-forth dynamic, PbtA games are very different from one another.

[Ionathus]

This may be a dumb question, but… what if you already feel that the role of the GM should be “to create starting situations and know how your monsters/world will react to certain stimuli that the players generate”? How is PbtA different from doing that in any other RPG?

Not a dumb question at all! You are absolutely right, that IS the role of the GM in most RPGs.

The difference is that a GM in, say, 5e D&D can probably muddle through by guiding their players through a pre-made campaign, with small course corrections if they get off track. Unless things go wildly off the rails, the pre-made monsters and dungeons and loot will mostly still be relevant and you can probably maneuver them into the scenes you want.

With PbtA, the players have way more influence on the actual narrative structure. Their player mechanics aren't just powers that help them fight: there are also abilities for them to suddenly change the plot or backstory in subtle ways. They can alter the framework of the game so much that you can't guarantee they'll even go to the scenes or "dungeons" you devise, so the GM has to think on their feet a lot more.

True: If your TTRPG table is already very improvisational, this won't be as big a difference. But a lot of tables are much more rigid and expect a meticulous planned-out adventure from their DM, which PbtA simply doesn't do. The improvisational elements are so much heftier that the railroad approach would quickly break down.

IMO what makes PbtA really different is the MC list of moves to choose from to give them strong direction while running the game, and that almost all player's Move rolls incorporate difficult player choices for the middle/typical result when they do have to roll. Also the MC is "required" to one degree or another to do improvised play, not planned adventures.

Very well said!

Other than that, the framing/language mostly reads as standard GNS elitism, especially in AW. Which is hardly surprising, since the author was a member of The Forge. And hosts The Forge archives.

I don't know those acronyms and Google isn't helping. What are GNS and AW, and why do you see them as elitist?

[Notafish]

I don't know those acronyms and Google isn't helping. What are GNS and AW, and why do you see them as elitist?

I think AW=Apocalypse World and GNS=gamism/narrativism/simulationism. Apocalypse World is the first PbtA game. GNS is a framework for discussing ttrpgs like an academic nerd instead of a gamer nerd. (I actually like the framework, but it is definitely not the only perspective to take on RPG design). GNS is explained here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

I won't speak for Tanarii, but I don't think that the PbtA vernacular ("moves", etc) is particularly friendly to players new to the system, especially ones who have read other TTRPG manuals.

[Notafish]

I've only run one session of PbtA (an Avatar Legends one-shot), but I had a lot of fun doing it. It's the first time I've GM'd an RPG that felt the way it's portrayed in media like Community (character voices in action scenes, having a full dramatic arc in a single session, stuff like that). To prepare for it, though, I needed to break a lot of habits, like planning story arcs or encounters ahead of time. (My setting notes and NPC/PC social network graph came in very handy, though!). I'd say the big pieces of advice that helped me were:

- PbtA games are "Drama Engines" not "Tactics Engines". Like Razade said above, these are games where the generation of a story is the focus, rather than winning encounters and campaigns. In fact, its probably a bad idea to think of confrontations between the players and hostile forces as "enconters" at all - rather, these are scenes in a story you are telling together.

- "Player Moves" are not dice checks - they are opportunities to move the story forward. While there might be mechanical consequences for success/failure on a move, it's the GM/MC's option to add complications to the story (via "GM Moves") that make the dice roll really exciting.

- The distinction between players and their characters is not that important, but emphasize the characters. The Avatar Legends rules tell the GM to refer to the players by their character names, but to not make a fuss if players ask to make a roll, rather than describing an action and then waiting for the GM to tell them what to roll for. I think this was very helpful advice to me and my table - having the guidance that we are portraying characters but to not worry about whether we were "in character" or "out of character" helped to loosen up the flow of conversation a lot for us.

[Tanarii]

I don't know those acronyms and Google isn't helping. What are GNS and AW, and why do you see them as elitist?

The flawed threefold Gamist / Narratavist / Simulationist model put forth by Ron Edwards of The Forge. The same guy that claimed Dungeons and Dragons and similar games are incoherent and traumatize gamers and that trauma results in brain damage. And the solution is Narrativist games that eschew Gamist and Simulationist as much as possible.

Apocalypse World (the father of the PbtA system). The rules look fine and fun for folks that like to play games a certain way. But the surrounding language of proper gaming / roleplaying is heaving rooted in the elitist philosophies that came out of The Forge.

Several other decent looking games (in terms of rule and play style) suffer the same fate. Luke Crane of Burning Wheel and Torcherbearer is another examples.

[Cluedrew]

Like everyone else I'm going to have to talk about where I get my experience of Powered by the Apocalypse. Which comes from a friend's homebrew systems that have their own flare and oddities, but also seems to have side stepped some of the problems people have with the family of systems.

Anyways there are two things I would like to call out.

First, the system is pretty much always in narration mode. It stays in narration mode with people just saying what happens next until the MC decides to resolve something with a move. That is, there never is some larger turn structure (in any variant I've seen) in which players act, the story just keeps moving forward.

Second, have proactive characters. The setting is often at rest in a Powered by the Apocalypse system and so it falls to the PCs to decide what they want, go out and try to get it then get into trouble and there is the adventure.

To Tanarii: Wait, is there any philosophical issue here or is it just a language issue? Besides with GNS itself of course because... I think you know why. But with nearby works, like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel, is it philosophy or language?

[Tanarii]

To Tanarii: Wait, is there any philosophical issue here or is it just a language issue? Besides with GNS itself of course because... I think you know why. But with nearby works, like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel, is it philosophy or language?

Good question. I'd say it's language that smacks of / strongly invokes imagery of the elitist philosophies. But actual execution based on following the core advice given would not automatically result in descending into those elitist philosophies.

Mostly because while they're true believers, in terms of the resulting rules and gameplay, half of what they say isn't actually meaningful, and some of the other half isn't actually reflected in the system they provide. Some of it is though, e.g. if you don't follow advice on improvisation you're probably not going to get the most out of the design of AW.

[Cluedrew]

Fair enough. 'Course, D&D has its language rooted in the war-game/dungeon-crawl days where your character was just a package of tools for you (the player) to solve problems.

I don't really have a point here other than this talk of Powered by the Apocalypse's elitism reminded me of a time someone was making fun of Apocalypse World's stat names. I believe the entire argument was they didn't use the same naming convention as D&D.

I guess there is a point here, don't insult a system just because its not for you. Or maybe be open to trying new things, or respect others tastes when it is a mater of taste. There are a bunch of ways to look at it.

But one point related to the thread's main topic that you hinted at that I would like to follow up on: Powered by the Apocalypse systems are individually quite narrow. They do have a certain way they are meant to be played and they traded flexibility to try and do that well. As a simple example, I never include a campaign pitch when I'm pitching a Powered by the Apocalypse game, the system usually provides a similar amount of detail. (Actually not entirely, but we tend to work out the rest as part of session 0/1 because it can be very PC dependent.) So I would generally go for a system that makes you think: "Yes, I want to play this system."

[Tanarii]

I guess there is a point here, don't insult a system just because its not for you. Or maybe be open to trying new things, or respect others tastes when it is a mater of taste. There are a bunch of ways to look at it.

Yes agreed agreed. Calling out the distasteful origin of the designers has some value in understanding it's influences but is really something of a tangent. Assessing the value of the system should really stand on its own. And PbtA games are generally very interesting and thought provoking designs.

But one point related to the thread's main topic that you hinted at that I would like to follow up on: Powered by the Apocalypse systems are individually quite narrow. They do have a certain way they are meant to be played and they traded flexibility to try and do that well.

In the same way that a war game and board game trade flexibility for their focus. There's sometimes value in that. Other times it means it is difficult to adapt or modify to player tastes.

Blades in The Dark is an example of a game I'd love to play or run, but there are too many aspects of its integral design that would make it hard to find willing players.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

OP, what specific game are you trying to understand? When it comes to PbtA, because it's less of an "engine" and more of a design ethos, it's helpful to dig into the specific game, just because of the ways the various games diverge. The only vampire PbtA I know of is Undying, but that isn't a new game. (Would also be interested to see what's out there on the scene these days!)

[Pauly]

My experience of PbtA is more as an observer than as a player or GM.

The most important part of PbtA is to have emotionally mature players. Of the long running PbtA campaigns I know of they break into 2 camps.
First camp is the mature group with diverse views and capabilities and they seem to have a lot of fun.
The second group is … less mature. Core members take their weekly bath as an obligation they don't feel the need to be fanatically devoted to, if they have jobs they usually are menial and without any authority, spend more time discussing their anime waifus than conversing with real girls, their main diet consists of cheetos and monster power drinks. This second group treats PbtA as a power fantasy where they can get any girl with a look, have massive power and influence on politics, and are endlessly successful. I know all RPGs are a power fantasy at heart, but these guys turn it up to 11.

You want your players to be from group 1.

[KorvinStarmast]

Player says what their character is attempting/doing, GM determines if a roll is necessary or resolves automatically, GM determines outcomes and consequences, is the basic play loop for most TTRPGs. That's not "narrative", that's just a standard resolution process.

And it works for a lot of TTRPGs.

IMO what makes PbtA really different is the MC list of moves to choose from to give them strong direction while running the game, and that almost all player's Move rolls incorporate difficult player choices for the middle/typical result when they do have to roll. Also the MC is "required" to one degree or another to do improvised play, not planned adventures.

There was some structure to the DW/Fellowship game we played, but there was a lot of off the cuff stuff also.

Other than that, the framing/language mostly reads as standard GNS elitism, especially in AW. Which is hardly surprising, since the author was a member of The Forge. And hosts The Forge archives.

Yeah, by their works shall ye know them.

What are GNS and AW, and why do you see them as elitist?

Because of where they originated.

The flawed threefold Gamist / Narratavist / Simulationist model put forth by Ron Edwards of The Forge. The same guy that claimed Dungeons and Dragons and similar games are incoherent and traumatize gamers and that trauma results in brain damage. And the solution is Narrativist games that eschew Gamist and Simulationist as much as possible.

The One True Way!

But the surrounding language of proper gaming / roleplaying is heaving rooted in the elitist philosophies that came out of The Forge.

Then there's the Big Model that came after GNS ...

Blades in The Dark is an example of a game I'd love to play or run, but there are too many aspects of its integral design that would make it hard to find willing players.

Yeah, it's not rules light and it has a high barrier to entry. Our group is slowly making our way forward, and so far enjoying it. There's a joke on reddit about "wow, now that I've read the rules 83 times I finally understand!" ... maybe hyperbole, but as we go through it we have found a grain of truth in that.

The most important part of PbtA is to have emotionally mature players.

True for some other games as well.

[Easy e]

I have GMed Monster of the Week and been a player in the system. That is my experience with PbtA systems, and each one is different so.....

- The learning curve for this system was incredibly quick. I took some noobs, had them make characters in a few minutes, asked them a couple of questions, and we were off and playing in about 15 minutes. It was so quick and easy, one of the players GMed their own game after playing three games.

- The focus is on cause and effect and is very story driven. This is not a tactical grid and dice style game and it will NOT deliver that experience.

- The system as we played it developed awesome characters very quickly and organically.

- The GMs job is to set the scene, and then layer in complications and challenges based on the Moves the players try to make. It is a more collaborative GMing experience than a traditional D&D-style game.


I hope that helps. It is really good at telling stories, episodic adventures, and overarching characters and story beats. In my experience, which is limited. I really enjoyed it and it was a breath of fresh air to run..... for me.

[Tanarii]

- The GMs job is to set the scene, and then layer in complications and challenges based on the Moves the players try to make. It is a more collaborative GMing experience than a traditional D&D-style game.

Other than using the term "scene", that sounds exactly like a traditional D&D-style game to me.

[Ameraaaaaa]

See personally i never could get into pbta games. In general they feel pretentious and the 2 times i gave it a shot didn't go so good.

1st was a few years ago. The group was terrible and generally dysfunctional so I'm not blaming that on bitd.

Recently someone was running shadowrun using a powered by the apocalypse system i forgot the name of and after spending half an hour on character creation or so i got fed up with all the questions the system was asking me. Tho to be fair i had just woke up when making my character so i wasn't in the best of moods.

Honestly the 2 main barriers for me are

1 i hate all the little specific questions the system asks. Like say "who did you **** over to get your vehicle" like what if i built it. I get that they are encourage plot hooks but 1 i can make plot hooks myself and 2 i don't want to lose character creation freedom to just make a plot hook. Even if I'm gonna steal my car from the military i don't want the game to ask me that question. Honestly it shouldn't anger me so much but it does.

2ed is the main thing. I don't want to play most pbta games. I know there's a lot so I'll just talk about the popular ones. I don't want to roleplay romance with other players so monster hearts doesn't interest me. I'm not really interested in urban shadows. I don't like playing teen drama so masks doesn't interest me. Ect ect. A handful are interesting but most of the ones that do interest me are not that popular.

Ex of an interesting one is flying circus. I'd love a vehicular combat game. Haven't read it yet tho.

[Cluedrew]

To Tanarii: Yeah, fundamentally it is still a role-playing game. The two biggest differences from traditional D&D-style are A) the game has a lot more structure on the GM side (which can be both a constraint and a tool) and B) the PCs have a lot more sway on the adventure. Like, trying to make up what the adventure is before you know who the PCs are is... doomed to failure because they can twist it in such completely different directions.

It is a strange dichotomy, for how narrow most Powered by the Apocalypse systems are in the type of story they tell the types of people allowed to be in those stories is often much broader. Maybe less flexible was wrong all along, maybe the flexibility is just in a different area.

To Ameraaaaaa: Was it The Crawl or something like that?

[Ameraaaaaa]

To Tanarii: Yeah, fundamentally it is still a role-playing game. The two biggest differences from traditional D&D-style are A) the game has a lot more structure on the GM side (which can be both a constraint and a tool) and B) the PCs have a lot more sway on the adventure. Like, trying to make up what the adventure is before you know who the PCs are is... doomed to failure because they can twist it in such completely different directions.

It is a strange dichotomy, for how narrow most Powered by the Apocalypse systems are in the type of story they tell the types of people allowed to be in those stories is often much broader. Maybe less flexible was wrong all along, maybe the flexibility is just in a different area.

To Ameraaaaaa: Was it The Crawl or something like that?

Yeah something like that. I was trying to play the driver before deciding not to join.

[Tanarii]

To Tanarii: Yeah, fundamentally it is still a role-playing game. The two biggest differences from traditional D&D-style are A) the game has a lot more structure on the GM side (which can be both a constraint and a tool) and B) the PCs have a lot more sway on the adventure. Like, trying to make up what the adventure is before you know who the PCs are is... doomed to failure because they can twist it in such completely different directions.

Agreed. And actual rereading my last post, it's possible to read what I was responding to as being very different from a traditional D&D-like game. It's fairly common in those games to set the "scene" and not add in new complications and challenges other than what's already in the "scene". You may discover ones that were not readily apparent, or you may encounter a complication or challenge as a result of PC or monster actions, but the encounter doesn't suddenly go sideways based on DM or player whim improvisation and introduce something entirely new (to the world or situation or or encounter or "scene") that the DM already hadn't already included. Too often.

[Easy e]

Other than using the term "scene", that sounds exactly like a traditional D&D-style game to me.

Then I guess you missed the part about more collaborative, and I have a hard time making this clear; because it is like pornography. You know it when you see it. :)

Let me explain further, instead of the GM always stating what happens, sometimes the players get to dictate where the story goes and are encouraged by the rules to do so. Sure, you CAN do this in D&D (and I do) but that is not the general method you see people play, and it is not really espoused by the book in any way that I recall.

Everything in MoW is much more abstract than in the D&D systems I have played. Therefore, GM and Player rulings are a core mechanic. It is hard to explain in writing, but the play experience is not remotely like any game of D&D I have ever played in a couple decades of playing RPGs.

Monster of the Week is explicitly designed to follow a storyline and ape television shows and movies. This is a style of play, I believe you dislike Tanarii..... so I would not expect you to enjoy this type of game at all. That is not a knock, but an observation.

[Telonius]

My own experience with PbtA: Reading the rulebook of "Masks: A New Generation." It's a superhero-based setting. The game never got off the ground, but one thing that really struck me when reading the rulebook. In D&D (and other systems), one of the really big social convention of gaming is that the DM doesn't tell you how your character feels. Outside of a few very specific mind-control spells, they tell you what happens, and you decide how your character reacts. It's a huge deal for player agency. But in Masks, the whole combat system centers around inflicting various emotional states. Which I think makes a lot of sense, since the game is an exploration of teenage superheroes just discovering their powers.

From what little I've seen of other PbtA games, this seems to be - if not common - at least not as unheard-of as it is in D&D. So while players have a lot more agency to try things, and not so many rules to say "no," that could be a big problem for people who aren't expecting it. If you're dealing with people who are very familiar with D&D, I'd lay that out very explicitly before starting the game.

[TaiLiu]

I played Monster of the Week before. It's one of my favorite games, and I like it more than any D&D edition I've played. I'll focus on just how it feels. There's philosophical differences and stuff but they don't matter too much as a player.

The major difference between MOTW and something like D&D 5e is how integrated everything is. You roll 2d6 for everything, and there's no combat subsystem or spell subsystem or anything. So moving between combat and non-combat encounters feels smooth. In 5e, "roll Initiative" puts you in a whole new world.

Archetypes are more smoothly delineated and everyone has a role. You're the Chosen or the Professional or the Spellslinger or whatever, and you're the only one. There's no mundane/magic divide in MOTW, so there's less of a concern about Wizards being better than Fighters.

You can't expect to just beat up monsters (at least not the important ones). Often the monster has some sort of gimmick, like a werewolf needing silver to be killed. 5e kinda sorta tries to do this, but not well, since magic BPS weapons can generally bypass whatever resistance or immunity a monster has.

5e is ultimately a game of resource attribution. You got a bunch of powers and you gotta manage them before you take a long rest. MOTW isn't. You can use your cool powers as often as you like. Your HP never increases, much like how actual humans don't become tougher by orders of magnitude via training and adventuring.

There are other differences but those are the ones I can think up right now. If you get a chance to play, go for it! It's a lot of fun.

[Witty Username]

How does tension and absolute failure work in PbtA?

Like for example, most RPGs have character death as a consequence of failure. Is that something that is when it makes sense or is their anything set for it?

Also, can one have a scene end in failure? Like say if we had a heist & getaway scene, thinking like Janye's backstory event in the Firefly episode Janyestown, is there a point where you just have to drop the money and keep running?

[Razade]

How does tension and absolute failure work in PbtA?

Like for example, most RPGs have character death as a consequence of failure. Is that something that is when it makes sense or is their anything set for it?

Also, can one have a scene end in failure? Like say if we had a heist & getaway scene, thinking like Janye's backstory event in the Firefly episode Janyestown, is there a point where you just have to drop the money and keep running?

Works like it does in any other story. If it works for the fiction and fits the narrative it happens.

[kyoryu]

How does tension and absolute failure work in PbtA?

Like for example, most RPGs have character death as a consequence of failure. Is that something that is when it makes sense or is their anything set for it?

Also, can one have a scene end in failure? Like say if we had a heist & getaway scene, thinking like Janye's backstory event in the Firefly episode Janyestown, is there a point where you just have to drop the money and keep running?

Depends on the game.

Most PbtA games have very definite rules for killing characters. And scenes can absolutely fail, often as a factor of people failing too much in the scene or just making poor decisions.

In fact, I'd say that failure probably happens more in most "narrative' games than it does in a lot of traditional games, even if failure doesn't always mean death.

Beyond that, we'd have to get into the specifics of any game, or look at how a scene might play out. But, yes, failure can and does happen in PbtA games, at a higher level than just "this roll didn't go well".